JJ Abrams Explains Star Wars Change Of Heart + See Empire Mag’s Star Trek Into Darkness Cast Photo Cover | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams Explains Star Wars Change Of Heart + See Empire Mag’s Star Trek Into Darkness Cast Photo Cover March 23, 2013

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Sci-Fi,ST: Into Darkness Sequel,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

When LuscasFilm and Disney announced that JJ Abrams was going to direct Star Wars Episode VII people were surprised, especially because he had previously said he turned down the job because of his work on Star Trek. Now in a special JJ Abrams Issue of Empire Magazine, Abrams explains his change of heart. Details on that below, plus a preview of the cool Empire fold out Star Trek Into Darkness cover.  

 

Abrams explains his Star Wars change of heart

In December JJ Abrams was quoted by Empire Magazine that he had turned down an offer to direct the next Star Wars movie due to his "loyalty to Star Trek." So it was a big surprise a month later when Disney announced that Abrams had signed on for Episode VII. Now in preview of the May issue of Empire Magazine, Abrams explains his change of heart:

“My knee-jerk reaction was that I’m in the middle of working on the Star Trek movie and I can’t even consider it. But then time went by and I got further along working on the movie and getting to a place where I had done most of the heavy lifting. So when I met with Kathy Kennedy we just started discussing it and I was able to actually engage in the conversation. I went down to tell Katie, my wife and I said ‘I had just a very interesting conversation with Kathy.’ That was the beginning.

“I will say that Steven [Spielberg] was very encouraging of Star Wars. It’s funny because I talked to him about it and it turned out he knew all about what was going on.”

So apparently it is all Spielberg’s fault….SPIELBERG!!!. It is actually a bit ironic because according to Bob Orci, it was Spielberg who helped convince JJ to direct (and not just produce) the 2009 Star Trek movie.

Anyway, Abrams and Bad Robot aren’t actually leaving the Star Trek franchise. They will be producing a third Star Trek movie to follow up Into Darkness, with Abrams and Bryan Burk returning as producers. However, recent comments from Burk about possibly aiming for a 2016 release (only one year after Episode VII) make it unlikely that Abrams will become the first person to direct three Star Trek movies. 

The Empire preview of their Abrams interview also had a bit about his early thoughts on Star Wars: Episode VII. The director said it was really too early for any definitive answers about the film, but he contrasted it with his work on Star Trek, saying:

“I feel like I can identify a hunger for what I would want to see again and that is an incredibly exciting place to begin a project. The movies, the worlds could not be more different but that feeling that there’s something amazing here is the thing that they share.”

The May issue of Empire Magazine is all about JJ Abrams and promises more Into Darkness news. Empire has also previewed the cool fold-out Star Trek Into Darkness cover.


Star Trek Into Darkness fold-out cover for May Empire
(click to enlarge)

 

Bad Robot embracing the Stars (Wars and Trek)

The folks at Bad Robot productions appear to have no issues mixing work on the to big "Star" franchises. This week the @bad_robot twitter feed shared this image of Star Trek and Star Wars-inspired art living together at the Bad Robot complex.

And last month when Bad Robot joined the Harlem Shake craze, you can spot a "Spock" and "Darth Vader" dancing together.

Comments

1. MJ - March 23, 2013

Cool cover !!!!!

2. Harry Seldom - March 23, 2013

Kirk doesn’t like people sitting in his chair!

3. leatherman - March 23, 2013

Thanks Spielberg! No, really, thanks!

4. colinar - March 23, 2013

“JJ, OUT of the chair..”

5. irishtrekkie - March 23, 2013

is Alice eve looks very tall compared john cho , might just be because she is standing closer.

6. NCC-73515 - March 23, 2013

Always nice to see the good old GGB.

7. LJ - March 23, 2013

Uhura gets the cover and Bones gets pushed to panel two with Scotty. I know why the marketing people do it, I know: she’s female, of race, good looking, played by a well-known actress. Even so, Bones and Scotty are far more important to the franchise (and more well-known publicly) than Uhura. Uhura is traditionally down in second class with Sulu and Chekov. The only characters the general public really know are Kirk, Spock, Bones and Scotty. Come on: an all guy approach works with other franchises (see Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, or even Red Dwarf and look how that worked out with Kochanski), why not Star Trek? Why do we need a token female in the key characters?

8. Harry Ballz - March 23, 2013

I suspect JJ Abrams is suffering from a bad case of “JamesCameronitis”, where one can’t help but go for it all so he can rightfully declare, “I’M THE KING OF THE WORLD!”

9. Cinema Geekly - March 23, 2013

I don’t know about anyone else but I love that this is going on. We are living in a Golden Age for nerd/geek culture as it pertains to the amount of content in our TV and films.

To me, being overwhelmed with so much is a good problem to have.

10. AyanEva - March 23, 2013

My lovely friend in Iceland has agreed to buy a copy and mail it to me. :) She sent me a copy of the Empire issue with Benedict on the cover too because she’s a great friend. I’m super excited to read this! I think this is a fun cover and I like how it’s JJ on his “throne.” Very cool that the film is getting so much press coverage!

11. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

@7 LJ

I agree. TOS-Trek is basically Kirk, Bones and Spock for me. Leaving bones out of the poster is a bummer (i don’t like the new poster anyway)
Furthermore they pushed Judge Dredd out of the way! Nobody treats Judge Dredd like that ;-)
And i also think that Karl Urban made the best performance of all of them. He deserves the big attention.

12. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

@ Cinema Geekly –
“I don’t know about anyone else but I love that this is going on. We are living in a Golden Age for nerd/geek culture as it pertains to the amount of content in our TV and films. ”

Could be better. The Stargate-franchise is dead, Battlestar Galactica is also over and Star Trek is alive but just on the big screen. I have to wait about 3-4 years to get a new film damn.
I am actually a little bored at the moment.

13. LJ - March 23, 2013

My apologies if the words ‘token female’ offended anyone in my above post: I have no problems with strong female characters if they serve as crucial a role in the plot as a male (see Ripley in Aliens). What I am complaining about is if they are just pushed to the front to try and attract a female audience, or – at worst – to sell posters to teenage boys. I feel about this the same way as I feel about male characters in teen films always being portrayed as jerks or accessories, or a combination thereof (I have daughters, so I’ve seen this quite a few times).

14. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

Abrams sorted out the mess again with Star Trek. Trek now is alive again. Now he has to do it again with Star Wars, which got almost single handedly destroyed by George Lucas. Good luck, JJ.
I am awaiting Episode 7

15. Baby - March 23, 2013

Am glad JJ gets to do star wars…he gets to fulfill his dream and be part of star wars history.

I know there are so many people that claim to be die hard star wars fans but face it at the end of the day you are just one of a billion fan around the world.

IF, however you get to work on a star wars material by directing a star wars movie or writing a star wars novel, you are no longer just a fan , you are now part of its history.

JJ gets to be part of the Star Wars history and not just a fan …how can any one hate him for that.

Besides…Star Trek 2009 is JJ’s most critical acclaimed work,I doubt he would ever top that .Not even with Episode 7 or STiD

So………..Have fun Mr Abrams.

16. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - March 23, 2013

I love the Cover.
Well. as long as we have great Writters and a great Director and a Incredible Story for the next Star Trek. Then J.J. Go for it.

17. Allen Williams - March 23, 2013

take your lens flares with you and don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Give us Johnathan Franks. He made 2 really good star trek movies.

18. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

Yeah, the cover looks great. If they could only have made that ugly Poster in a similar way.

19. Baby - March 23, 2013

I see the Trek diehard fans still whining about how Uhura is replacing Mccoy.

GROW UP GUYS AND STOP WHINGING LIKE SPOILT KIDS.

Am so glad JJ is moving to star wars. The star wars diehard fans are very accepting of women.

20. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

@17. Allen Williams
“take your lens flares with you and don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Give us Johnathan Franks. He made 2 really good star trek movies.”

He made the best (First Contact) and the worst (Insurrection) TNG-film.
I am not that convinced about him.
And i like Lens Flares.

21. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

@Baby
“I see the Trek diehard fans still whining about how Uhura is replacing Mccoy.The star wars diehard fans are very accepting of women.”

Preferring Bones on the poster has nothing to do about not accepting women, but because Bones is the more important character.

22. Aurore - March 23, 2013

My crew looks…. “fierce”!

….And, in other news :

“I will say that Steven [Spielberg] was very encouraging of Star Wars. It’s funny because I talked to him about it and it turned out he knew all about what was going on.”

Why am I not surprised?
It reminds me of the time when “Steven” was very encouraging of Star Trek….

“‘Star Trek XI’ scribe Roberto Orci told fans at Creation Entertainment’s Grand Slam: The Sci-Fi Summit in Burbank, Calif., that Spielberg had to work to convince Abrams to take on the project while the up-and-coming director was visiting the set of ‘Transformers’ last year.”

(Link if authorized, here):
http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/4931

Well, I can be the… “encouraging”… type as well ; best wishes in your future endeavours, Mr. Abrams!

:)

23. Jack - March 23, 2013

Okay, this seems a bit odd…
__________

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS & Paramount Pictures Celebrate WWF’s Earth Hour

LONDON, March 23, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — As the UK prepares to go ‘into darkness’ for WWF’s Earth Hour, Paramount Pictures is pleased to announce its support with a special ‘Star Trek’ themed light display which will dim as Earth Hour approaches.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/19991206/PARLOGO )

This amazing light show by Paramount, in conjunction with Ars Electronica Futurelab & Ascending Technologies, will see quadrocopters fly into the night sky, forming the Star Trek federation logo beside Tower Bridge on a scale never seen before. In keeping with Earth Hour’s initiative, the quadrocopters will utilize batteries that were charged in Austria using green energy from the Austrian renewable energy grid specifically for this event.

The event will coincide with WWF’s Earth Hour at 8:30 pm. Along with key landmarks such as Big Ben, the Houses of Parliament, and The London Eye going dark, the quadrocopters will turn off their glow in support of Earth Hour.

24. dmduncan - March 23, 2013

8. Harry Ballz – March 23, 2013

Maybe.

But what the hell does Spielberg have to do with it?

There always seems to be some hint of Spielberg in the background of JJ Abrams’ career. What’s up with that?

And people’s opinion of Spielberg seems to be on the rise, while mine is going the opposite direction.

I have not been able to view him the same way since he got involved with making political propaganda

25. Jack - March 23, 2013

I take that back… pretty cool…

https://twitter.com/ParamountUK/status/315578838929268736/photo/1

26. Aurore - March 23, 2013

“And people’s opinion of Spielberg seems to be on the rise, while mine is going the opposite direction.”
_______

You and me both…

27. K-7 - March 23, 2013

Wow, like 25% of the posts here so far are from this male chauvinist Exverlobter clown. Quantity over substance.

28. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

@K7

“Wow, like 25% of the posts here so far are from this male chauvinist Exverlobter clown. Quantity over substance.”

I am just answering to previous posts. Not allowed?

ANd i am not a chauvinist i just still think that Bones should have deserved a place on the poster because he (normally) is a more important character than Uhura.

29. JohnRambo - March 23, 2013

JJ…..please come back to Trek…….:-(

30. K-7 - March 23, 2013

LJ said in #7, “Why do we need a token female in the key characters?” And then in #11 you said, “I agree.” So there you have it.

Besides, it’s an alternate timeline. Uhura is at least as important as Bones in this timeline. Deal with it.

31. Phil - March 23, 2013

Hey, Keachick, there’s your cast photo!!

32. Jemini - March 23, 2013

7. LJ
again with this? this is getting really OLD

“Even so, Bones and Scotty are far more important to the franchise (and more well-known publicly) than Uhura.”
says who?
I’d say that Uhura is way more popular than Scotty here, without question. Take a look at the amount of fanworks and blogs dedicated to Uhura compared to Scotty.

not to even mention Zoe Saldana’s popularity and how she’s known and her face is recognized even by non trek fans.

“The only characters the general public really know are Kirk, Spock, Bones and Scotty.”

what is this general public, specifically?
the general public aka the fans of the reboot aren’t just the old trek fans, a lot of people that love the reboot didn’t even watch TOS and they won’t care about how it “was” or how it’s supposed to be according to some fanboys. A lot of people also are fans of the reboot precisely because it’s not totally like TOS because the original star trek had never interested them.
and Reboot-vise, Scotty didn’t get any more character development than the others. Uhura and MCCoy got more screentime than him and were more prominent. They’re also more prominent in both the comics and the novels.
and frankly, even I that *I’m* a fan of Tos I never considered Scotty that popular or remotely comparable to McCoy.
and I’d rather get annoyed at him getting replaced by Scotty (so it seems) than Uhura, tbh.

33. Craiger - March 23, 2013

Do a Star Trek / Star Wars crossover.

34. AJ - March 23, 2013

What’s all the hubbub about this “Star Wars” thing, anyway?

It’s, like, a film that came out in 1974 or something. They’ll recycle anything these days, I tell ya. As long as it makes a fast buck.

35. Spockchick - March 23, 2013

@ Exverlobter.

Agreed that Karl’s performance was excellent. Shame they couldn’t have had him on the poster as well as Uhura.

36. olly - March 23, 2013

As long as JJ Abrams takes Cumberbatch with him to Star wars I’m happy. I really really want to see Cumberbatch in Star Wars.

37. Marja - March 23, 2013

Quick question,

Is Empire mag available in print form in the US?

38. K-7 - March 23, 2013

#34 “Agreed that Karl’s performance was excellent. Shame they couldn’t have had him on the poster as well as Uhura.”

Wow, some of you obviously aren’t even looking at the poster? He is on the poster. Sheesh!

39. Nony - March 23, 2013

Somebody on Tumblr fixed the cover already! They took Cumberbatch out, pasted Urban in, and it looks very nice indeed. Go look it up. :)

40. Cygnus-X1 - March 23, 2013

Spielberg: “Loyalty shmoyalty…take the money!”

JJ: “Wow, I never thought of it that way. I believe I am having a change of heart brought on by a combination of increased pecuniary incentive and your sagacious advice.”

You’re all heart, JJ.

41. Anthony Pascale - March 23, 2013

Exverlobter warning for spamming. You dont need to dominate discussion to make your point

K7 warning for flaming. Namecalling is not called for

42. Boy - March 23, 2013

Zoe Saldana will always been seen as that blue chick from Avatar, which just happens to be the highest grossing film of all time.

Zoe been a woman of colour is an advantage to her, she is not only african american , she is also a black latina that speaks Spanish. Zoe is also one of the few women of colour that gets cast in mainstream film where race is not even central to the story.

so yeah Zoe is one of the most popular members in the cast

Also I am the only one that think zoe saldana is much prettier than alice eve?

uhura is more classy and sexy while alice eve is sexy with a lust appeal.

43. K-7 - March 23, 2013

I apologize.

44. Nony - March 23, 2013

You are forgiven, K-7.

45. Jemini - March 23, 2013

21. Exverlobter
“Preferring Bones on the poster has nothing to do about not accepting women, but because Bones is the more important character.”

see, I LOVE Bones. He’s my favorite after Spock, I ACTUALLY like him more than Kirk (now I said it)
but this insistence that one character is more important than another is getting pretentious as hell.
This is not TOS but it seems that some people want the promotional stuff to reflect the old thing instead of what the reboot actually is now and the way this story is written.

Maybe you all should just accept that Bones isn’t “the more important character” here and move on getting rid of this stupid “Uhura is replacing Bones” obsession.

46. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

“Exverlobter warning for spamming. You dont need to dominate discussion to make your point”

.Sorry, it was not my intention to dominate the discussion. I just was answering to previous posts as they were coming up.

47. Jack - March 23, 2013

Is Karl Urban going to sell a movie? That why he’s not on the poster.

48. Ahmed - March 23, 2013

@ 38. K-7 – March 23, 2013

” #34 “Agreed that Karl’s performance was excellent. Shame they couldn’t have had him on the poster as well as Uhura.”

Wow, some of you obviously aren’t even looking at the poster? He is on the poster. Sheesh!”

Sorry, he is NOT. And we are talking about the international poster that came out with the latest trailer. Not the Empire magazine poster.

49. K-7 - March 23, 2013

This whole article is covering the Empire Magazine fold-out poster. There is another recent article talking about the foreign posters.

You are on the wrong message thread.

50. Lurker - March 23, 2013

We all know that McCoy is a very big part of the original crew.

But all this complaining of McCoy not being in the main posters is baseless. Go look at the TOS movie posters – only one or two of them had McCoy; and in those, he was in the background.

TMP had Kirk, Spock, and Ilia.

TWOK had Khan, Kirk, Spock, and Saavik.

TSFS and TVH he was in the background and barley recognizable.

TFF and TUC he was not there again.

If you want to criticize the new Star Trek for leaving McCoy out, fine, go ahead. But the original movies did the same thing.

51. Ahmed - March 23, 2013

@49. K-7

Well, you were replying to someone who was talking about the international poster. Hence my reply to your reply ;)

52. Jeyl - March 23, 2013

LJ: “Why do we need a token female in the key characters?”

Why do we need rampantly sexist comments like yours?

53. Jeyl - March 23, 2013

Lurker: “TFF and TUC he was not there again.”

Bones was featured in the final TUC poster. Both Kirk, Spock and Bones had their heads in that big angled orange beam.

54. ksmsscu - March 23, 2013

Is ‘selling’ now ALL that Trek is always going to be about? Everyone can say that’s all entertainment is ever about, but you can think of great movies and TV that studios, networks and producers surely wanted to sell big, but the product was still superior and universally respected and even loved.

If we eventually get a new, serialized, ‘serious plus action’ TV series (another TOS cast or entirely new concept), it can sell well, entertain (without summer blockbuster expectations) with depth, adventure, humor and camaraderie, and return to what Star Trek was and can be again — way better than run-of-the-mill, churned-out syfy.

And if they ever try TOS again, Bones is logically and passionately the third leg of the triad that once propelled us all at warp speed.

55. BJ (TheFreshmaker) - March 23, 2013

McCoy not on the poster? WHO CARES? Go back and look at the posters for the first six movies, he isn’t on half of them. Heck on TMP and TWOK he is replaced by Ilia and Savvik respectively.

56. Aaron - March 23, 2013

So will we see a WARSMOVIE.COM???

57. Mr.Atoz - March 23, 2013

What is it about the pub photos that always make Quinto look like a bad Puerto Rican Tranny ? He looks great on film but all the pub pics are horrendous. What’s up with that ?

58. Lurker - March 23, 2013

@53 Yes, you are correct, – it was an alternate (or international) poster that only had the Enterprise and a Klingon head.

59. ksmsscu - March 23, 2013

@50 and others — Why all this torment over the movie posters? Each had a good reason to emphasize the big villain or the Bird of Prey swooping under the bridge and so on.

The point is that through films 1-6, @50 remarked: “If you want to criticize the new Star Trek for leaving McCoy out, fine, go ahead. But the original movies did the same thing.” Yes to the posters, sir or ma’am. But think back to the plots and Dr. McCoy was essential to every story line with the possible exceptions of TMP and TVH.

Nothing against Zoe Saldana, who is doing fine work as her character is written, but Karl Urban seems masterful in channeling the humanity and cynicism of Dee Kelley. To toss that potential to the side is what Spock once observed about Kirk’s responsibility to be back in the command chair: “Anything else is a waste of material.”

60. SherlockFangirl - March 23, 2013

I should get a credit for bringing this to your attention in the other thread.

LULZ

61. captain_neill - March 23, 2013

If Abrams makes less changes to Star Wars than he did with Star Trek I might think he is being more faithful to the one franchise he loves more.

62. captain_neill - March 23, 2013

Most posters had Kirk and Spock mainly

Ilia joined them on TMP, Saavik on TWOK.

McCoy, Sulu, Scotty and Saavik where with Kirk at bottom left on TSFS

The interantional poster for TVH had all 7, I think it’s the international, Intrada used them for the CD.

63. captain_neill - March 23, 2013

The original actors I prefer over the new actors as the TOS crew, Shatner, Nimoy et all are the ones who defined the characters and mae them the characters I fell in love with. Sorry but that is how I feel.

Given that the new actors do their best. Even though Simon Pegg has played Scotty too much with comic relief that to me he is NOT Scotty and Zoe Saldana basically turning Uhura into a bit of a bitch to Spock the actors do good jobs.

My other main hope for Into Darkness is that we get a strong story this time. It was forgotten last in a plot that relied on contrivances to drive things forward and a villain who was pathetic and was esentially a plot device. I don’t understand how Nero is memorable to people, he is way lower than the good villains. Shizon is a better villain, even Ru’afo was a stronger villain but F. Murray Abraham was playing him.

64. Iva - March 23, 2013

You don’t understand how marketing works, movies need to have a sexually available female in the front so the male audience watching can project themselves into having sex with her.

She will never be removed from the front, no matter how irrelevant to the plot, TOS or ST in general. Bones can retire for as long as men who think with their other head lead the franchise.

You also forget that JJ is not a ST fan and has never watched it or cared about it so listing all the ways the triad and Bones are important is pretty useless – how many men want to sleep with him? Far less than Saldana.

65. Khaaan, the weasel - March 23, 2013

Nice cover! Karl Urban looks so damn much like a younger (and arguably taller) version of DeForest Kelley and with his hair like that, Simon Pegg also looks a lot like a lankier James Doohan

66. Ritz - March 23, 2013

I don’t think the problem is with Bones not being front and center on the poster (at least not for me). It’s the fear that he won’t be a central character in the movie, just like was a minor character in the first film, as Uhura had a more prominent role.

As Nicholas Meyer said on his Wrath of Khan commentary, the interplay between the personalities of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy was perhaps the key element that made the original Trek something special. I think its disappointing that may be missing in new Trek.

67. gingerly - March 23, 2013

” Zoe Saldana basically turning Uhura into a bit of a bitch to Spock the actors do good jobs.”

And you wonder why JJ’s doing Star Wars. Aside from being a fan, I’m sure he’s happy to get away from the hypocrisy of Trek fandom.

We love the diversity of Trek’s vision…except we really don’t.

I can’t really blame him. It’s like you don’t even know what kind of show Trek is, why Roddenberry did it in the first place.

It certainly wasn’t to attract viewers who would out differences as “deficits” in character, whether that be gender, race, or species.

68. gingerly - March 23, 2013

By the way…Here’s a nice “fixed’ Empire cover:

http://media.tumblr.com/d3adacaeefda6509edf55a35a93d95e6/tumblr_inline_mk4djudnoR1qz4rgp.png

69. Ahmed - March 23, 2013

@ 66. Ritz – March 23, 2013

“I don’t think the problem is with Bones not being front and center on the poster (at least not for me). It’s the fear that he won’t be a central character in the movie, just like was a minor character in the first film, as Uhura had a more prominent role.”

Precisely. That is my problem when they give Uhura more focus & diminish McCoy in the process.

70. SherlockFangirl - March 23, 2013

#68

I thank you.

<3

71. Ahmed - March 23, 2013

@ 68. gingerly – March 23, 2013

“By the way…Here’s a nice “fixed’ Empire cover:”

Great, thanks for sharing :)

72. Spike - March 23, 2013

Is there a picture anywhere with the entire crew standing around Kirk in the captains chair, or do they only exist with Abrams in it?

73. Red Dead Ryan - March 23, 2013

Wow, a lot of stupid comments on this thread.

Listen up all of you sexists, racists, bigots, etc. Uhura wasn’t a bitch in the last movie. Underdeveloped? Sure.

But they’re giving her a more prominent role this time, with actress Zoe Saldana fighting alongside the boys.

Yeah, I love McCoy. I hope to see some Kirk-Spock-McCoy debates/humor in the sequel. It formed the core of TOS.

But posters are posters. As others have said, McCoy was only on two of them in total.

So he’s not on the poster? BIG FRACKIN’ DEAL!!

GROW UP ALL OF YOU!!!

SHEESH!!!

74. Copper Based Blood - March 23, 2013

#42 Boy

in my opinion Zoe is a lot prettier that Alice, but would be nice for once in awhile for her to do a different pose than the “looking Over her shoulder” shot!!!

75. MJ - March 23, 2013

@63. Based on what I have seen so far in the new trailers and previews, and considering the great performance in Trek 2009, I am pretty close to being able to rate Chris Pine as a better Captain Kirk than William Shatner.

Nimoy always will be the best Spock — he simply defined the part for all time. However, Quinto does a great job, nevertheless.

Deforest Kelly was fantastic, but Karl Urban is also fantastic. I rate this a tie.

Zaldana and Cho are infinitely better actors than Nichols and Takei.

Koenig was a much better Chekov than Yeltsin.

Doohan was a much better Scotty than Pegg. Part of the issue here though is that the writers didn’t give Pegg much to work with beyond comic relief, so Pegg has a shot in the new film to improve my opinion of his take on Scotty.

76. lampshade - March 23, 2013

Alice Eve looks manlier than all of them.

77. MJ - March 23, 2013

@73. Right on RDR — let them with the small minds who are stuck in the past have it. I agree 100%.

78. lampshade - March 23, 2013

74, that’s your opinion. I hated Koenig’s character, but played by Yelchin he was actually quite appealing. Cho a better actor than Takei though? No.

79. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

@Ahmed
” It’s the fear that he won’t be a central character in the movie, just like was a minor character in the first film, as Uhura had a more prominent role.””

This film was primarily about Kirk and Spock. Uhrura did not have a more prominent role than Bones. They were equals

80. MJ - March 23, 2013

@24. In my personal opinion, War Horse and Lincoln are two of the best historically dramatic movies in recent memory. Spielberg has had a late career resurgence with these two movies.

81. Red Dead Ryan - March 23, 2013

#75.

I agree with most of your rankings, MJ. But I think TOS Shatner is going to be hard to beat.

Chris Pine may end up being a better movie Kirk than William Shatner, however. Pine is a terrific actor, and it isn’t out of the question.

And oh yeah, the Talifans out there can stay in there caves in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Kashmir staying miserable while the rest of us true fans enjoy the movie at the theatre in May.

82. Red Dead Ryan - March 23, 2013

there=their

DAMN TYPOS!!!

83. Exverlobter - March 23, 2013

@gingerly

“And you wonder why JJ’s doing Star Wars. Aside from being a fan, I’m sure he’s happy to get away from the hypocrisy of Trek fandom.”

Maybe JJ will regret it.
Well if he does not deliver a good film the Star Wars fans will rip him apart the same way they trashed Lucas. 13 years after Episode 1 the hate still feels fresh.
The Star Wars fans can be way more unforgiving than the Trekkies.

84. Ritz - March 23, 2013

@ 79

Perhaps, I haven’t watched it in a year or so and did not time the screentime of each character – regardless it lacked any Kirk-Spock-McCoy moments. And it seems, although who knows, that may be the case again. I am more likely to forgive it in the first movie as that was mostly an origin story. But a lack of that in the next movie would be at best disappointing.

85. MJ - March 23, 2013

Wow, I can’t believe Gingerly made those remarks comparing negatively Star Trek fandom to Star Ways fandom. I recall seeing some absolutely horrid things about George Lucas on SW sites — stuff that is a level of negativity greater than anything I have ever seen here.

I don’t think Gingerly is very familiar with SW fandom or she would not have made that comment.

86. MJ - March 23, 2013

@68. Why does the cover of Empire need to be fixed? Not to mention that whoever did that just violated a slew of copyright laws.

87. somejackball - March 23, 2013

JJ Abrams: All your Sci-Fi Are Belong To Me!

but maybe not a bad thing, i like his style

88. gingerly - March 23, 2013

@85

Oh, I am, so please don’t assume or speak for me.

I saw Empire in the theater and took off work to see Episode I. George got hated on because he delivered a subpar product, period.

There wasn’t anything said about Leia, but plenty about the terrible acting and dialogue.

There were plenty of people who called out the odd and possible racial caricature influences for Jar-Jar and plenty of people were fans of Oola, played by the one woman of color in the original franchise.

…And let’s not forget that Lucas wanted to Glynn Turman to be Han, but Hollywood wasn’t ready for that, back then.

You were saying?

89. MJ - March 23, 2013

@88. Great — thanks for correcting that perception that your earlier post created.

90. gingerly - March 23, 2013

@89

Correcting your perception.

Don’t speak for others. Own your prejudices.

91. Dee - lvs moon surface - March 23, 2013

Chris Pine is in C for men magazine

http://samjonespictures.com/#/still/chris_pine

92. MJ - March 23, 2013

@90. Be snotty about it if you must, but you are the one that specifically said:

“And you wonder why JJ’s doing Star Wars. Aside from being a fan, I’m sure he’s happy to get away from the hypocrisy of Trek fandom.”

I would argue that this statement would create a general perception in most people’s minds that you think SW fandom is more positive and better behaved then Trek fandom. I mean you are pretty much saying that JJ is happy to get away from Trek fans and move over to SW fans — that is what I think most people would take from your statement.

Not a big deal, but just try to be more clear next time on what you are trying to say.

93. JRT! - March 23, 2013

@37-Marja,in case no one answered your question,yes it is available in the US. Barnes & Noble usually carry it,some comic book stores and other book stores and newsagents like Hudson News….if you’re in New York,lol.

Off to London next week and look forward to picking up my copy the day it comes out.

J-R!

94. StelArian - March 23, 2013

It’s funny… Decades ago Star Wars show the way to Star Trek into big screen. Today, Star Trek teaches Star Wars reboot :)

95. Jack - March 23, 2013

86. ” Not to mention that whoever did that just violated a slew of copyright laws.”

Fair use.

96. dmduncan - March 23, 2013

88. gingerly – March 23, 2013

Glynn Turman! Did not know his name OR that he was the preferred Han Solo.

He’s like Bruce Greenwood. I knew their faces but couldn’t tell you their names — in Greenwood’s case until ST.09. Turman had one of the best lines in John Dies at the End.

97. MJ - March 23, 2013

@95. Altering a copyrighted photo isn’t generally covered by Fair Use. A parody would be an exception, but this isn’t a parody.

98. Ashley - March 23, 2013

Why is Spock armed? >.>
Also, is it just me or are the uniforms too long? I feel like Kirk especially is wearing an oversized shirt rather than a uniform top. The skirts too, though at least they don’t look as goofy… :\

..*blinks* Is Chekov ripped now? o.o His pecs, shoulders, and arms look rather large…

99. dmduncan - March 23, 2013

But with all due respect, I don’t like the “fixed” cover because Cumberbatch in the original is exactly where he should be — mirroring Kirk as the antagonist.

100. StelArian - March 23, 2013

About Star Wars come back… if you ask me, it’s a waste of effort.

George Lucas is not an idiot. You think he didn’t try to bring back original’s trilogy “magic” to prequel trilogy? For sure he try… but couldn’t make it work!

Look at Return of the Jedi. It’s practical New Hope + Empire Strikes Back remake mix. Whatever Star Wars had to give, give it with the original trilogy. Lucas knows that better than anyone else. That’s why he try a new approach with prequel trilogy.

Disney represented a huge pile of money. Want to use them to make more. They will maybe succeed. But don’t expect the “magic” to come back.

101. Nony - March 23, 2013

Continuing the general marketing discussion – why never a poster with Kirk, Spock, Uhura, *and* McCoy, like the ‘fixed’ (which was seemingly a joke) one? I just don’t particularly care about Cumberbatch, so I’m annoyed by all the focus he is getting in the press, though this is just a personal feeling and I understand that he’s being used to grab a certain segment of fans, the same way Zoe is. I like having Uhura as a focus in the marketing. She needs to stay there. But if there’s going to be another white dude on a magazine cover with her, Quinto, and Pine, I would rather see Urban there than Cumberbatch. For the sake of history and that fantastic character interaction that should be part of any TOS reboot, for the sake of DeForest Kelley, and for the sake of Karl’s own near-universally-approved performance.

I’m sure, though, that whatever the posters and covers look like, there will be a decent amount of McCoy in the actual film. I hope. I hope?

102. Ahmed - March 23, 2013

@100. StelArian

The problem with the prequels was basically the crappy dialogue that Lucas wrote, not to mention the fact that the stories were not as fresh or smart as the originals.

With Abrams in charge & Lucas is not writing this time around, this might be the chance the SW fans waited for. Abrams is SW fan & he knows how to make a blockbuster movie.

103. Keachick - March 23, 2013

#31 Yes, indeed, Phil. I have my cast photo. It only took them 15 months and then it appears in a UK magazine…LOL

If the trailers are anything to go by, it seems the last thing we will see this Kirk doing is sitting in the captain’s chair. I do recall seeing a shot of this John Harrison appear to be sitting in that chair though. Our fine Pine/Kirk appears to be keeping very fit, what with all the running, diving, leaping, hanging etc. He does have a brief moment lying down while he seems to eat a floor and the opportunity to glance back quickly, while running, to see a crewmember in uniform…”but, wait a minute – is she in underwear, What? Huh?”

While the Enterprise crew and their antagonist look a little weary, JJ looks very happy. I mean, who wouldn’t be happy if you got to spend time keeping the captain’s chair warm while Captain(?) Kirk and others run around the galaxy chasing this Harrison dude?…:)

Going on my desktop until a better one comes along – one with the cast giving a wee smile…

104. I'm a trekkie NOT a trekker TOS=The ONLY Series (worth watching) - March 23, 2013

LJ: Not only is she a token female, she’s a TOKEN, token female. (now I’m a racist pig.)

105. LizardGirl - March 23, 2013

You have to love it when people do this Harlem Shake vids….and don’t actually do the “Harlem Shake” in the video….

106. Keachick - March 23, 2013

#104 – YAWN…

107. MJ - March 24, 2013

Anthony, can you please nuke the troll in post @104? Thanks!

108. Red Dead Ryan - March 24, 2013

#104.

Hey Mullah No-More, go back to your filth-ridden cave and leave us alone!

109. Ahmed - March 24, 2013

Beside Iron Man 3, what other major movies coming out in May that might cause issues to Into Darkness at the box office ?

110. Red Dead Ryan - March 24, 2013

#109.

“Fast And Furious 6″. I’m looking forward to that too.

111. MJ - March 24, 2013

Say Ahmed, Iron Man 3 is two weeks before STID, so I don’t see an issue. If anything, IM3 will start getting people back into the theaters after this dismal movie Spring, and I think therefore probably increase the audience for STID.

I’ll be interested in seeing if STID can still stay #1 on the weekend of the 24th when The Hangover III and The Fast and Furious 6 open. If STID wins that weekend, then it may rule the box office all the way until After Earth opens on June 6th.

112. DonDonP1 - March 24, 2013

@33, LOL, no offense, but it ain’t gonna happen, for “Star Trek” is owned by CBS while “Star Wars” is owned by Disney-Lucasfilm.

113. Ahmed - March 24, 2013

MJ, I don’t know about the Fast & Furious, but I think it will be harder for Star Trek to beat The Hangover III.

” If anything, IM3 will start getting people back into the theaters after this dismal movie Spring, and I think therefore probably increase the audience for STID.”

Yep, the Spring season was so dull. Nothing worth going out to see at the theater at all!

114. Vulcan Soul - March 24, 2013

Abrams’ betrayal at least is a chance for Trek to get past the explosions, hyperbole and shallow dialogues that all seem to reach new levels of ridiculousness in the latest brainfart of this hack, and return to a path of dignity and serious science fiction.

115. boborci - March 24, 2013

114. vulcansoul

oh stop it. he didnt write the movies, we did. so if u dont like the content, blame us, not him.

116. Ahmed - March 24, 2013

I think it is hard to comment on the content of a movie that didn’t come out yet in the theaters.

117. MJ - March 24, 2013

Yea Vulcan Soul, get your facts straight the next time your toll here with your JJ hate.

Bob, 90% of fans here really appreciate all of yours and JJ’s great work on Trek (even though we may bicker with you at times). Don’t let a few bad apples get to you, my friend.

118. boborci - March 24, 2013

117. MJ

thanks, dude!

119. Ahmed - March 24, 2013

Bob, any idea when Ender’s Game trailer coming out? I just can’t wait to see that movie.

120. StelArian - March 24, 2013

Agree with MJ. Keep up the great work boborci. As I see it, your reboot is full with Star Trek spirit. Thank you for all you have done.

121. Marja McCoy - March 24, 2013

J-R,

Big thanks for the info! I’ll be haunting my local Barnes&Noble …
——————————————–

Ye Olde Bitter Ones who hate JJ Abrams, the character Uhura and the ST Reboot universe,

After you read the TrekMovie news about our dear and venerable TOS stars, please feel free to repair to your dens and watch DVDs of the original series and the early ST movies … please spare us the nasty comments on the creators and characters of Reboot Trek, which you apparently hate.

Constructive criticism is one thing, but hating on something is another thing completely. It’s neither constructive nor helpful.

122. Red Dead Ryan - March 24, 2013

#114.

Take a hike!

For all of you haters out there:

The sequel articles are not for you. They are for us fans. Don’t bother coming back. You’re not welcome here.

Thank you.

123. Anthony Pascale - March 24, 2013

Final warning to Vulcan soul for trolling

124. fwise3 - March 24, 2013

117. I concur. Bob, you ARE appreciated! LOVE what you’ve done with the Trek franchise. It would be dead without you! Thank you for what you do.

125. Ahmed - March 24, 2013

Hey Anthony, any plans to resume the weekly Sci-Fi (TV & movies) news that we used to have on trekmovie ?

126. Trekkiegal63 - March 24, 2013

That is an incredible cover. I may have to make a dash to Barns and Noble to nab a copy when this comes out.

127. Buzz Cagney - March 24, 2013

#50 but the point is he was never replaced by Uhura.
Karl’s was the only performance that came anywhere near the character’s that he was portraying. He deserves better than being downgraded by Uhura of all characters!

128. Elias Javalis - March 24, 2013

Ah, J.J Abrams. The man who performed a miracle by reviving our franchise. No doubt, he will do it again for Star Wars. I have only admiration for the man, he proved to be hardworking and above all connected. I am no Wars fan (i was, a long time ago) but i ll follow his Star Wars movie..for sure.

129. The Sinfonian - March 24, 2013

@Bob… Okay, but did you write [insert lens flares here] into the script, too? We have to give JJ some credit there, don’t we? :)

@Uhura… Can we all remember what Uhura said to Mr. Adventure in TSFS? “You wanted adventure? How’s this? The old adrenalin going? Good boy. Now get in the closet.” She’s always been in the mix. Let’s not get all bent out of shape, when we already have plenty of clues that in TOS we didn’t see all the exploits of Nyota onscreen. Plus, it’s 2259, 6 years before the famous 5YM began.

130. boborci - March 24, 2013

129. Sinfonian

no, we did not say insert lens flare. but we did explain that Star Trek was about a bright future where optimism ruled. he translated that to lens flares. so we can take some blame/credit for that, too.

131. boborci - March 24, 2013

124 thanks! but i am not trying to be appreciated. trying to be blamed!;)

132. J - March 24, 2013

I hope to see Star Wars VII marketed as “From the director of Star Trek” :>

133. stunkill - March 24, 2013

@19 yeah star wars fans are very accepting of women and nothing else. Especially scantilly clad women and nothing else. What about the sexuality of a nice masculine body which many of us enjoy, men and women alike, after all wouldnt that pertain to the acceptance of women? Even though you could care less what others like different from what you like, right? Now dont be a typical hetero male hypocrite, and not consider others out there with different perceptions.

134. The Sinfonian - March 24, 2013

@Bob, gee, can’t wait to start blaming you for the script to the third movie! Blame begins in T-53 days? I figure why not beat the rush. Once STID is out, everyone will be so busy blaming you for everything they don’t like, I can get a head start on movie 3.

Should have known you’d take credit for the lens flares though! You should take credit for him getting the SW gig too, because you and Alex totally prognosticated that when Damon twittered that pic of you and Damon planking in front of Star Wars!
http://twitpic.com/562l87

May the Farce be with you!

135. JRT! - March 24, 2013

@Bob…. And I hope you’ll continue to be involved in the ongoing comic after the movie as well. Please!? And how’s Amazing Spider-Man 2 coming along? Yeah,Spidey fan as well,and can’t wait for new movie next year!

Keep up the great work!

J-R!

136. Stefan - March 24, 2013

#98 …Yeah, the size of their enormous shirts is something, that catched my eye from the very beginning. In the 60ies the uniforms (from shirt to pant to bootee) all were very tight fitted. A very formfitting style, that is very popular through Europe to this day. That casual, slightly oversized dressing style of these days, I think, is more of an american thing…

137. Buzz Cagney - March 24, 2013

#115 but JJ did think it was great stuff though, which was why he agreed to Direct.

And oh dear, MJ, Pine a better Kirk than Shatner? Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
You could attempt to be more wrong. You could try as hard as you liked at being more wrong. You would fail. Pine is an actor pretending to be Kirk. Shatner IS, WAS AND WILL ALWAYS BE, Captain Kirk. Anybody else is an imitation.

138. boborci - March 24, 2013

135. really happy with Spidey so far. Hope u like it!

139. boborci - March 24, 2013

137 buzz

correct. he agreed our shit was great, which is why he agreed to direct, correct. you are right. So what?

140. boborci - March 24, 2013

134. trying to make sure that if you hate something, you blame the right people.

141. JRT! - March 24, 2013

@Bob… Thanks for that! I actually enjoyed last years Spidey,so can’t wait for this one! Keeping a close eye on all the rumors and info,lol! So,are you still gonna be involved in the Star Trek Ongoing comic after the movie? Please say yes! lol!

Have fun!

J-R!

142. boborci - March 24, 2013

141. the comic?

yes! Johnson and I have some cool things coming your way. we hope u likey!

143. Curious Cadet - March 24, 2013

Where exactly does the female officers rank appear on their uniforms?

What rank is Carol Marcus? Don’t really see anything on her uniform that distinguishes her from an ensign or a captain.

Or are all women the same rank?

144. The Original Spock's Brain - March 24, 2013

@24. dmduncan, “And people’s opinion of Spielberg seems to be on the rise, while mine is going the opposite direction. I have not been able to view him the same way since he got involved with making political propaganda.”

You must hate Star Trek because it’s all “political propaganda”.

Spielberg has known J.J. since he was a boy. He’s a family friend and confidant. Spielberg is one of film’s greatest directors ever. No legitimate film historian or critic would argue otherwise.

145. Stefan - March 24, 2013

#boborci my appologies for beeing so plain-spoken, but do you think there is a way to fully integrate the »exploring element«, »the sense of wonder towards the unknown« that (beside many things) made star trek so successful? I know there is big difference in TV and film, but could there be a proper but also mass apealing way to blend something from that spirit into a big blockbuster story?

146. JRT! - March 24, 2013

@Bob..Ooooh,that is excellent news! Thanks Bob! Been enjoying the ongoing comic from the beginning,enjoying Countdown to Darkness as well. Thanks man,real cool!

J-R!

147. boborci - March 24, 2013

145 stefan

i do think that is possible. and something i want to see. but first we have to earn the freedom to do such a thing the way TMP earned it as a result of the original series.

148. James H - March 24, 2013

The San Francisco geography depicted in that cover makes my head hurt.

149. Keachick - March 24, 2013

I have watched the latest trailer with the controversial scene showing
Carol Marcus in underwear. It was such a quick shot. I am not sure what she is doing in the scene or where she and Kirk are. It seems that she finds herself in the corridor on a ship (the Enterprise?) and both she and Kirk look a bit surprised, even bewildered…

I know this may sound a bit strange but could her unusual attire and surprised expression have something to do with her being caught in transporter buffers while in her quarters and then reappearing in the corridor? Something like that…

Just a thought, a guess…maybe Bob Orci could give me/us some idea of how far or how close I am with my guessing…OR

I just have to wait till 9 May 2013!…sigh.

150. Elias Javalis - March 24, 2013

Bob, i find intriguing the use of terrorism in Star Trek…Seems more real and mature. I want to ask you, now that trek is on right track, how do you intend to balance fantasy and reality in future installations?

Thanks!

151. Exverlobter - March 24, 2013

@149 Keachick

I guess Kirk catches her off guard like Uhura in the last film.

152. Aurore - March 24, 2013

@24. dmduncan

I see your point.

And, I know this was in no way to argue about Spielberg’s achievements as a well-respected, and, prominent film director (unless I misunderstood the content of your post).

Especially coming from you.

…Having said that, I personally think anyone would be allowed not to be impressed by his (Spielberg) work, though.

Moreover, I do not know whether many, who “understand” cinema, would dare criticize him publicly.
However, I do remember “witnessing”* a very awkward moment, from my perspective at least, between Jean-Luc Godard and Steven Spielberg, on French public national television , a few years ago…

* I saw images of the event years (?) after it had occurred….Or, at least, that is what I thought ; I seem not to be able to find any trace/mention of it anywhere, now.

However, I did manage to find a clip where Jean-Luc Godard gave his opinions on different filmmakers, including Spielberg.

In it, what he said matched, so to speak, what I thought I had seen and heard from him, years ago.

…Unfortunately, in said clip, he also stated things, that could, to some, invalidate his opinion on Spielberg’s work…

I recognize that.

153. Aix - March 24, 2013

That cover is class! Here’s hoping the US posters are as colorful as this one. It just makes me smile.

Anyway, seriously?! Removing Harrison and photoshopping Bones? That’s just a desperate move from the fans. I mean, I love Urban and his portrayal but people just need to accept that he is not in the trio in this incarnation.

154. Ted C - March 24, 2013

How odd, a cast photo for a Star Trek movie and they aren’t in space or on the bridge but in front of a city. Hello..it’s Star Trek….stars…space..trek….get it?

155. Exverlobter - March 24, 2013

” How odd, a cast photo for a Star Trek movie and they aren’t in space or on the bridge but in front of a city. Hello..it’s Star Trek….stars…space..trek….get it?”

Trek Episodes shot entirely in space were mostly regarded as cheap bottle-shows. Having a film shot on planet is a good thing

156. Carl Geffers - March 24, 2013

I haven’t read all the comments, so excuse me if somebody already posted something like my idea.
So here is my theory about Cumberbatch’s character: he’s an augment or an android and the first of his kind, designed by starfleet (especially by carol marcus (after all she is a pretty good scientist) and her admiral father) for mass production. But the project was put on hold and all of the augments/androids were frozen/deactivated and put into storage (the coffins) except for Harrison and now he is trying to free them – “isn’t there anything you wouldn’t do for your family?” and “Your Commanders have comitted a Crime and I cannot forgive.”.
This story would make a lot sense with the Original Series depicting artificial life forms quite often and the political comment Star Trek is known for – in this case slave labor and the creation of a cheap work and military force. Abd thus possibly laying the groundwork for the war with the Klingons (who would naturally want to fight other warriors with Harrison’s skills) in the third movie.

157. Spockchick - March 24, 2013

@156. Carl Geffers

That theory is very resonant of the ‘in vitros’ of ‘Space, above and beyond.’ They were grown humans who are stronger and tougher than others. I am only part-way through watching the series, but so far I am enjoying it.

158. Carl Geffers - March 24, 2013

@157. Spockchick

I always liked that series, but I didn’t think of it when thinking about the plot for STID. I was more inspired by Data and the Doctor and how they were treated by Starfleet and how a person bred for violence – like Harrison obviously is “I will walk over your dead corpses” – would try to free his people – not through justice or literature but through more violence.
I’ve read all the Star Trek comics from IDW and in the “Archons-remake” there were hints at some immoral ongoings in Starfleet Headquarters and if you watch all the Trailers one after another you really can’t come to any other conclusions from Harrisons dialogue then he is a freedom fighter fighting Starfleet to free his family/people.

159. Jemini - March 24, 2013

I’ll say this trying to not sound too rude but some of you guys here really need to chill out and take yourself a tad less seriously.
Have a laugh, it’s free!
That photoshoped cover with Urban being placed where Benedict is: it is supposed to be a joke, and it was probably made BECAUSE of the recent wank in the fandom about people being unhappy that Bones isn’t in the cover. That’s just a fan having fun.

160. Lt. Dakin - March 24, 2013

Thanks for everything you’ve done for Star Trek, boborci, and the rest of the team. May 15 can’t come soon enough.

Maybe you can have a surprise screening in Kansas City this time, since we now have an Alamo Cinema and draft house. And to pay homage to the fact that Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan tested in Kansas City. (Unfortunately, I didnt live here then!)

Were you ever on location at the Crystal Cathedral during shooting? I jjust visited there 2 weeks ago and it looks like it will be fantastic in the film from the last 2 previews!!

161. Noropolis - March 24, 2013

My concern about “Into Darkness” after seeing the international trailer is that it look very “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” and isn’t this STAR TREK? Why so much on Earth and San Francisco? What about “exploring strange new worlds”. I don’t want “earth based” Star Trek.

FINALLY, how come the trailers don’t bring that epicness feel like the final trailer for “Star Trek” (2009)? Good music like Two Steps From Hell. None of the new trailers feel epic to me.

162. CAPT KRUNCH - March 24, 2013

I have figured out what is missing throughout these movies: Enterprise!
What I have always found to be one of the most pivotal characters to any TREK..well TOS TNG ENT adventure is the BIG E herself!.. Perhaps the hate of the JJ Enterprise has mage her less of a character than just a devise or machine. When she swished across the screen in TOS, you felt youe were ot there….When we and Kirk first saw her in drydock in TMP how excited we were to see how fancy she had become…Whe she died in TSFS..I really cried….When she reappeared in TVH…I was so excited for the future!..When she travelled off into theh sunset? in TUC how sad I was again that it was done. I grew to like 1701D as a new home for a future generation. Though 1701E was kinda ugly..she grew on me as well!…. Enterprise introduced the 1st warp 5 vessel…and though she seemed much more advanced than her 23rd century TOS predecessor…I got it.. Archer loved his ship and she was a prime character in each episode.
I’m not seeing it yet from the J.J. Enterprise. Granted I haven’t seen this movie yet, and maybe it will be addressed.. We do see evidence of her destruction as she falls into the atmosphere of Earth, though I’m pretty sure that is not the Big E crashing into Alcatraz or into San Francisco….
I guess this ranting point is that it would have been nice to have seen her along her cast mates on the mag cover.

163. Curious Cadet - March 24, 2013

@147. boborci,
“we have to earn the freedom to do such a thing the way TMP earned it as a result of the original series.”

I see what you did there.

TMP was widely panned, despite being a commercial success and the franchise arguably suffered because of it.

In other words, Stefan shouldn’t hold his breath.

164. Curious Cadet - March 24, 2013

@149. Keachick,
“could her unusual attire and surprised expression have something to do with her being caught in transporter buffers while in her quarters and then reappearing in the corridor? Something like that…”

Or, she’s changing into a uniform with a place for her rank so the men on board the ship will take her more seriously instead of just objectifying her shapely legs and sensuous arms in her standard duty mini skirt … She’s so exasperated that she’s doing it in the middle of a corridor after the last man patted her on the bum when she tried to give him an order — thus the look between she and Kirk after she relaizes what she’s done …

165. Exverlobter - March 24, 2013

@ Noropolis
As said, if you have a Budget you can shoot on Planets. If you don’t have a Budget you have to stick to the ship. Trek Episodes shot mostly on the Ship are cheap bottle-shows.

166. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

144: “You must hate Star Trek because it’s all “political propaganda”.”

Shockingly, I disagree with you!

I don’t think Star Trek IS political propaganda. Not the Star Trek I watched.

Example: While “A Private Little War” sums up my views on gun control and I do side with Kirk in that episode, it presents the other side of the argument.

In fact, I frequently find myself wondering who is right and who is wrong in Star Trek. Just because Kirk chooses a path doesn’t mean it’s right or that we necessarily agree with his action. Star Trek did an excellent job of making the issues not so clear, which shows respect for independent thinking—which is the OPPOSITE of propaganda, because propaganda doesn’t CARE about you or your personal thought processes unless it is to make sure you are thinking what you are directed to think.

Spielberg’s Lincoln fit perfectly into the second-coming-of-Lincoln meme of Barack Obama’s presidency. The only thing missing was to release it before the election, which would have made it BLATANTLY pro-Obama propaganda, which is exactly why it’s release was held back. But it WAS made and released during this second-coming-of-Lincoln zeitgeist, and it reinforces the notion of a kind of filial link between the two presidents.

Propaganda.

I also don’t agree with you that Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time.

I reserve that description for innovative filmmakers, and Spielberg is an effective filmmaker, but he’s not particularly innovative. Certainly not like Coppola or Kubrick or Fellini or Von Stroheim or Eisenstein or Godard.

In fact, I’d say Spielberg learned all his best tricks from Frank Capra, whose cultural shoes he seems to have filled.

As far as Spielberg being a family friend of JJ’s— great!

But does that really explain why Spielberg always seems to be casting half a shadow on JJ?

167. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

152. Aurore – March 24, 2013

In it, what he said matched, so to speak, what I thought I had seen and heard from him, years ago.

***

Oh? What was Godard’s opinion? I’ve never heard it.

168. Ahmed - March 24, 2013

@166. dmduncan

“As far as Spielberg being a family friend of JJ’s— great!

But does that really explain why Spielberg always seems to be casting half a shadow on JJ?”

Maybe we can look at it as the application of the Chwayatyun aka The Rule of Two which states that there would be only two Sith at one time, a Master and an Apprentice :)

On a more serious note, maybe Spielberg is considering Abrams as his protégé & he is guiding him to make the right decision when it come to major projects.

“Certainly not like Coppola or Kubrick or Fellini or Von Stroheim or Eisenstein or Godard.”

These names reminded me of my college times when I used to go to Art Houses to watch their movies :)

169. Ahmed - March 24, 2013

I think Aurore was talking about this:

Godard Slams Spielberg
http://www.contactmusic.com/news-article/godard-slams-spielberg

170. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

168: “On a more serious note, maybe Spielberg is considering Abrams as his protégé & he is guiding him to make the right decision when it come to major projects.”

The only thing Spielberg could possibly do is to guide JJ into making what SPIELBERG thinks is the “right decision.”

I say: Get OUT of his light Steven. You’re starting to look pathetic.

171. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

169. Ahmed – March 24, 2013

There ya go. I agree with Godard. I would say that his films are effective on large numbers of people, but greatness eludes Spielberg.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is his best movie, I think.

172. Spockchick - March 24, 2013

158. Carl Geffers

The re-done ‘Return of the Archons gave me a real shock, and, as someone in another thread said, makes me pause about who are really the villains, and who are heroes. We won’t know ’till May.

173. captain_neill - March 24, 2013

If they don’t treat Scotty as comic relief and give him some serious stuff then of course I will re evalute my opinion. Pegg was great to watch, he was entertaing but he just was not Mr Scott to me. Hard to follow in the footsteps of Jimmy Doohan.

Maybe I was too harsh and not clear in my thinking when I said Saldana made Uhura a bit of a bitch. Just did not like her interpretation of Uhura as much. And I dont like the relationship with Spock. She just came across as a bit too pushy and not strong in the way of characters such as Kira Nerys and Jadzia Dax

Not sure why I don’t like her take on Uhura as much.

174. captain_neill - March 24, 2013

149

I assume the lingerie shot is for the mainstream, seems so randomly placed in the trailer.

As long as it is not played for a cheap laugh and maybe have a serious scene it could be something up there with the decon chamber scene in Broken Bow.

175. Mel - March 24, 2013

@ 143. Curious Cadet
“Where exactly does the female officers rank appear on their uniforms?
What rank is Carol Marcus? Don’t really see anything on her uniform that distinguishes her from an ensign or a captain.
Or are all women the same rank?”

It seems men without rank insignia are ensigns, and women without rank insignias have to explain their rank every time they met someone, who hasn’t heard their rank before. That must get tiring for everyone. Just imagine that someone gets newly transferred to the Enterprise. He/she probably often won’t know, if someone with a lower or higher rank stands in front of him/her.

176. captain_neill - March 24, 2013

perhaps I am too unkind to Zoe Saldana’s take on Uhura because it is different from Nichelle Nichols and due to the fact that I don’t like Spock being togerher with Uhura and that’s probably because it didn’t happen in the Original Series.

Maybe I have been too unfair to Abrams take because it is different from the shows I grew up loving, an emphasis on action set pieces at the cost of great storytelling. I just felt Abrams took the magic of Trek away to make it seem like Trek in name only, maybe he did, maybe he didn’t it seems to depend on who you ask.

How do I view Abrams take? I feel it’s not totally faithful to Roddenberry’s vision but then again others seem to think that it is.

However, I want to give Into Darkness a chance because I do want to be proven wrong. I will always prefer the prime universe shows as that is the Trek I grew up loving but I do want to see Into Darkness and come out saying “That’s a Trek film” but I know Abrams is not aiming for me.

Irony is that if all hard core Trekkies did not go and see it it would still be the biggest. I will be there as I want Star Trek to remain popular. I just hope Into Darkness is better written than the last one was.

177. Michael Hall - March 24, 2013

“but we did explain that Star Trek was about a bright future where optimism ruled. he translated that to lens flares. so we can take some blame/credit for that, too.”

Hmm. Lots of things to mull over in what’s been seen so far, but the vibe of INTO DARKNESS sure doesnt strike me as being ‘optimistic.’ I’ll definitely want to see how that pans out in May.

178. Aurore - March 24, 2013

@ 167. dmduncan – March 24, 2013

“Oh? What was Godard’s opinion? I’ve never heard it.”
________

In the video* I found today ( from 1987) , he said amongst other things that, Spielberg was not as good a director as he (Spielberg) thought he was.

He also stated he liked Fellini, and had respect for Allen and Kubrick…

*(Link if authorized, here):
http://www.ina.fr/video/I08046707

179. Red Dead Ryan - March 24, 2013

#166.

“I also don’t agree with you that Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time.”

Let’s see:

“Jaws”. A huge hit and arguably the first summer blockbuster. A an absolute classic.

“Close Encounters Of The Third Kind”. Another hit movie, and highly influential as well. See J.J Abrams’ own “Super 8″.

“E.T.” Ditto. A classic kids movie, but still has a place in the hearts and minds of adults who grew up with it.

“Raiders Of The Lost Ark”: All of the Indy movies are good, but this one is perfect. A masterpiece that can’t be beat.

“Jurassic Park”: A game changer with the advancement of cgi dinosaurs that helped pave the way for massive epics like the “Lord Of The Rings” movies and “Avatar”. Like “Jaws” before it, the film holds up really well even in an age of cgi, and the theme of cloning is still a relevent topic.

“Schindler’s List”: A great movie. Spielberg’s best made movie, and his most important. Great casting, especially Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler.

All of these movies I mentioned are considered among the greatest films in history.

CASE CLOSED!!!

180. Red Dead Ryan - March 24, 2013

Not to mention that Spielberg’s movies have been massive hits at the box office. Maybe one or two duds, but generally his films have done well with both audiences and critics alike.

181. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

@179. Red Dead Ryan – March 24, 2013

Ryan, you can only close the case for yourself.

All the things you listed prove what I said—that he’s an effective filmmaker who makes pop movies, which I already acknowledged. But he’s not innovative and does not deserve to be categorized with those who are, regardless of how much money he has made.

You can’t buy your way into the innovator’s club.

He’s not even as original as Frank Capra who was such an obvious influence on Spielberg’s style, and the better of the two filmmakers, in my opinion.

But if you measure greatness — which I do not — by how many hearts and minds he has won, then you may think he’s great.

That’s not how I measure it.

Raiders, I think, is the best movie of its kind ever to be made. I also loved Jurassic Park, but I’m a dinosaur loving man, so I was an easy score on that one.

He is a good filmmaker and he knows how to push the right buttons, but I think his desire to manipulate his audience has sapped his potential.

I think he may be making movies for the wrong reasons.

He reminds me somewhat of George Lucas, but he’s gone off the track in a different direction.

182. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

178. Aurore – March 24, 2013

I do not speak French, mon amie!

183. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

178. Aurore – March 24, 2013

If I hear you correctly, I see that too.

Spielberg strikes me as someone who wants to be thought of as great. But the artists I think are great are too absorbed in their art to care what people think of them.

184. Aurore - March 24, 2013

183. dmduncan – March 24, 2013

“If I hear you correctly, etc etc…”
______

You heard me correctly, mon ami.

185. Mikey1091 - March 24, 2013

No idea if this was mention before, but at the end of the article, right above the tusken raider/spock image, in that paragraph there, you had a little spelling bump. you mispelled two as to. Just figured I’d point it out. No, I’m not a grammar nazi or anything, LOL! I honestly didn’t notice it the first couple times I read the article, lol.

186. steve - March 24, 2013

Hi Boborci, have tried to catch you a few times on this question. Do you think there’s any chance of getting theaters to show a non-3D IMAX version of the film? Really want to see it in IMAX, but many of us are condemned to always see the “flicker” in current 3D technology.

Also, please tell JJ and everyone involved a big “THANKS!” for the primo Alice Eve shot in the latest trailer…

187. Tom - March 24, 2013

#147 boborci

Good point Bob on TMP. You guys will get there on your body of work. Studios will respect the non trek related too! Can’t think of anyone more capable of pulling off something like The Motion Picture blended in with the more recent Trek elements

Can you top Into Darkness for 2016?? Go for it
50th anniversary, can we see a small nod to Kirk Prime, Spock Prime ?

188. Curious Cadet - March 24, 2013

@175 Mel,
“women without rank insignias have to explain their rank every time they met someone, who hasn’t heard their rank before. That must get tiring for everyone. Just imagine that someone gets newly transferred to the Enterprise. He/she probably often won’t know, if someone with a lower or higher rank stands in front of him/her.”

And that in no way objectifies the women. /s

Female Commander: Excuse me ensign, please get me the duty reports for the day.
Male Ensign: Excuse me MISS, what gives you the authority to order those reports?
Female Commander: I’m a commander.
Male Ensign: Prove it.
Female Commander: Look, I’m wearing a miniskirt with no sleeves, I don’t have any place to carry identification. But I am a superior officer.
Male Ensign: Not from where I’m standing.
Female Cmmander: Damit Ensign, this is insubordination!
Male Ensign: Not without rank it isn’t.
Female Commander: Don’t you know who I am?
Male Ensign: No. Not yet. But damn you’re sexy in that uniform.

189. boborci - March 24, 2013

150 Elias

Haven’t thought about future installations yet – still finishing this one!

Plus, lets see if paramount wants us back!

190. captain_neill - March 24, 2013

I look forward to being proven wrong.

I want Star Trek to remain popular

191. captain_neill - March 24, 2013

Was Carol Marcus in Starfleet in any of the books?

I thought she was a civilian scientist, she never wanted David in Kirk’s life to be in Starfleet.

192. MJ - March 24, 2013

@191. Different timeline. You are getting confused.

193. MJ - March 24, 2013

@176 “perhaps I am too unkind to Zoe Saldana’s take on Uhura because it is different from Nichelle Nichols and due to the fact that I don’t like Spock being togerher with Uhura and that’s probably because it didn’t happen in the Original Series.”

Dude, again, this is an alternate timeline. You seem to be not getting this?

194. MJ - March 24, 2013

@170. You posts are usually more thoughtful than this?

195. Exverlobter - March 24, 2013

@193 MJ
“Dude, again, this is an alternate timeline. You seem to be not getting this?”

Even in the original timeline it could happen. There were 1-2 episodes in TOS where Uhura seemed a little bit flirting with Spock.

196. MJ - March 24, 2013

“Spielberg strikes me as someone who wants to be thought of as great. But the artists I think are great are too absorbed in their art to care what people think of them.”

Wow, the guy has been snubbed over and over for awards, many of which he probably should have won (recently: Argo over Lincoln, wtf?), and he always handles the mounting losses with grace, and congratulates the winners, and soldiers onto his next project with what I see as an honorable approach. I have never heard him once complain about an Oscar loss.

You don’t like the guy…fine, that is a personal opinion anyone can have. Maybe you should just leave it at that.

197. MJ - March 24, 2013

The guys made so may great movies for the masses that have made so me many people smile and love movies in general — for five fracking decades now. So the artsy-fartsy types don’t like him and don’t give him awards, and some here like that…like that matters given his resume that most of teh world loves. Let the outliers bitch and moan…no big deal.

198. captain_neill - March 24, 2013

MJ, I know its an alternate universe, you don’t have to speak to me as if I am dumb.

I just was under the impression that not everything would be so draticaly changed as a result.

199. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

196: “You don’t like the guy…fine, that is a personal opinion anyone can have. Maybe you should just leave it at that.”

Well I think I am “leaving it at that.” I’m posting my view in here, not knocking on his door and handing him a clipboard to sign, acknowledging that he knows what I think.

And can’t really say I dislike Spielberg. He’s made too many likeable movies. Can say that my opinion of him is not what it used to be, and criticisms that other people have of him, like Godard, I understand and agree with.

Part of the “greatness” of Spielberg is due to the greatness of the publicity he has had since the beginning of his career, but I must confess that, excepting Raiders and a few others, I don’t see what the media experts seem to see in his films, even in the ones that are almost UNIVERSALLY praised. I’m usually not in their universe.

I do, however, give Spielberg high praise for not abandoning film. He and JJ are two of too few people keeping it alive. Whoever directs number 3 is probably going to use digital. Too bad.

200. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

The guys made so may great movies for the masses that have made so me many people smile and love movies in general — for five fracking decades now. So the artsy-fartsy types don’t like him and don’t give him awards, and some here like that…like that matters given his resume that most of teh world loves. Let the outliers bitch and moan…no big deal.

***

Ha! Our opinion is a big enough deal to you or you wouldn’t try to offend those of us who have it with marginalization by calling us “artsy fartsy types.”

Notice I said “try to offend.” Given the things that “the masses” like and support, I am USUALLY honored to be distinguished from them.

Even if the terms used to make the distinction are not flattering—they sorta are. ;-)

201. The Sinfonian - March 24, 2013

@189 Bob, I can only speak for myself, but I sure as heck want you back for continued trekking… so who do we bug at Paramount to make it so?

With the timeframe moving forward now in the movies… is there a chance those four novels that went into limbo after ST’09 might now be allowed to go forward into release??? And is Alan Dean Foster handling the novelization of STID?

Bonus thanks for making the IDW series cool.

202. MJ - March 24, 2013

By the way, who in the heck is this Godard guy who doesn’t like Spielberg?

203. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

Jean Luc Godard. Spielberg knows who he is. I’m very sure of that.

204. Mad Mann - March 24, 2013

I still think it’s BS that Abrams is now doing Star Wars. It’s like he used Star Trek as a stepping stone to what he really wanted.

It’s like someone said when you (Star Trek) go to the prom with the hot girl(Abrams), but then she leaves with the more popular guy(Star Wars).

Also, I am EXTREMELY envious of him.

205. Barney Fife - March 24, 2013

Bob – I know it’s early to talk about this, but I’d be willing to bet that Paramount will be contacting you about the 3rd movie by May 20th or so. I think the only question is who Paramount will hire to direct movie. In my humble opinion, Star Trek 2016 is a MUST for the big Five-0 and everyone will be at the top of their game for the ultimate anniversary present for the fans!

206. captain_neill - March 24, 2013

204

That is how I felt when he got Star Wars, and also given the fact he gave Trek a more Star Warsian style to it.

I think he made a good film but I do feel he will probably make very few changes to Star Wars, given that he is a fan, unlike with Star Trek.

As a bigger fan of Trek I still like my Trek to be faithful to Roddenberry’s creation as well as being kept fresh. If it goes against that then it just becomes Trek in name only.

207. MJ - March 24, 2013

@203. Never heard of him (Godard). And you know what, I kind of like that!

Ha! ;-)

208. MJ - March 24, 2013

“I think he made a good film but I do feel he will probably make very few changes to Star Wars, given that he is a fan, unlike with Star Trek.”

That doesn’t make any sense. The story will start post episode 6, with all the bad guys destroyed and the empire done with from the original six movies. He had no choice but to have a completely new story with completely new bad guys, and a new generation of heros since Han, Luke and Leia are so old.

Don’t get your comment at all??? By definition, he HAS to change most everything ???

209. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - March 24, 2013

Re: MJ

Jean Luc Godard was a famous French filmmaker. He was known for his experimental films in the 1960’s and 1970’s “New Wave”, many of which highlighted his love of socialist politics and his disdain for Western culture.

His movies are really quite boring and pompous, but he has a cult-like status within the small community of film school professors and their students. You aren’t missing much by not being aware of him.

210. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - March 24, 2013

Some quotes from Godard’s contemporaries on his films:

“Someone like Jean-Luc Godard is for me intellectual counterfeit money when compared to a good kung fu film.”

– Werner Herzog

“… his gifts as a director are enormous. I just can’t take him very seriously as a thinker — and that’s where we seem to differ, because he does. His message is what he cares about these days, and, like most movie messages, it could be written on the head of a pin.”

– Orson Welles

“I’ve never gotten anything out of his movies. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a fu*king bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin féminin: 15 faits précis (1966), was shot here in Sweden. It was mind-numbingly boring.”

-Ingmar Bergman

211. Jerry - March 24, 2013

everyone is bitching about the next Star Trek director for Star Trek 3 from Bad Robot and JJ Abrams.How about the directors that pulled the original Star Trek movies out of the crapper in the 80’s and 90’s. Nickolas Meyer and Johnathan Frakes. they put their own take on Star Trek, and the success was outstanding! Hell after one of them directs the next entry for the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek , maybe JJ Abrams can convince them to do Star Wars 8 and 9.
If we are criss-crossing franchises ,why not get it done right!!!

212. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

209, 210

What is that? Are you seriously hoping to deflect Spielberg’s failures by criticizing Godard?

Godard’s not here. But I am, and I happen to share his opinion of Spielberg. So if you want to try and impeach someone for their opinion of Spielberg, how about you start with me?

213. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - March 24, 2013

Re: dmduncan,

MJ asked who Jean Luc Godard was, and I provided my information and thoughts on him, given I am film buff and am aware of his work.

I did not comment on Spielberg, so please don’t drag me into your Spielberg bitch session with MJ.

214. Theevolved1 - March 24, 2013

I think it was the Million Dollar Man Ted Dibiase who said it best… “Everybody’s got a Price.”

215. Crone - March 24, 2013

I am a huge French New Wave film fan, a fan of Godard, and I love Spielberg , as did the late wonderful Francois Truffaut . All of these folks are/were wonderful fail makers. There is plenty of room for all of them on this planet. There are many different kinds of great filmmaking.

216. Red Dead Ryan - March 24, 2013

Sounds like this Jean Luc-Godard fellow was a real douchebag.

And numerous big name directors seemed to say the same things about him. Pompous and boring. Kind of like Jean Luc-Picard! :-)

dmduncan thinks Steven Spielberg is overrated and Jean Luc Godard is something special?

Kind of like someone saying how Jean Luc Picard is better than James T. Kirk. Total lack of credibility.

dmduncan is usually a rational guy, but he seems to have gone off the deep end on this one! :-)

217. Marja - March 24, 2013

Buzz [your earlier post], “Karl’s was the only performance that came anywhere near the character’s that he was portraying. He deserves better than being downgraded by Uhura of all characters!”

Uhura *of all characters*? Ouch! Would you have been happier if she was instead a “he,” one of the male majority types? I’m really trying to understand why you’d make such a nasty-seeming remark.

Uhura’s more action-oriented role is *part of the new timeline.*

Her relationship with Spock is *part of the new timeline.*

Her importance as a character is *part of the new timeline.* Where once she was relegated to a supporting role on the Bridge, now she’s got A Piece of the Action. As a woman I am happier for seeing this. I am happier that people coming to Trek for the first time are seeing this too.

Yes! I agree with you on Karl Urban’s ace performannce as McCoy, but Pine and Quinto were both sensitive to trying not to “imitate” the original actors. Urban pulled off his characterization of McCoy, because he didn’t do an exact imitation – he paid a more direct tribute to Dee Kelly – and it was just great. Plus it was scripted by writers who really like McCoy as he originally was, and his original character fit in the new timeline.

Pine and Quinto were very concerned that they not imitate Shatner and Nimoy. Quinto consulted with Nimoy extensively on the character Spock, not to imitate him, but to better understand the motivations and background of the character, and his characterization is different, with a new dimension.

And Pine’s Kirk is far more deeply felt and [IMHO] better acted.

Both of these characterizations were reimagined by the writers, and so reimagined by the actors.

I love the newly envisioned characters, especially Saldana’s Uhura, as written by Orci/Kurtzman … she’s a multi-dimensional professional who happens to love another multi-dimensional professional.

I hate that people think McCoy is being “replaced” by anyone. McCoy is a vital part of the team. He reminds us always to be careful and empathetic. I hope we see some “triad” time in this film, but because everything is now a bit darker and terrorism- or war-oriented, McCoy will probably be doing a lot more medical things [vice adventure things] than in Days of Yore.

218. Michael Hall - March 24, 2013

“Sounds like this Jean Luc-Godard fellow was a real douchebag.”

Wow, great thing to say about someone whose life and work you’re obviously competely unfamiliar with. For a person who so recently (and, I might add, movingly) wrote about his own struggles with being accepted during what was apparently a painful childhood, you don’t much mind making snap judgements about other people, do you?

dmduncan, though I don’t really see your point about ‘propaganda’ we’re very much agreed about Spielberg’s career overall. As a master showman and brilliant craftsman he’s made billions of dollars for the entertainment conglomerates he’s worked for, and brought some measure of joy to the lives of countless people. All very admirable, and none of which makes him a true artist, let alone a brilliant one.

219. Red Dead Ryan - March 24, 2013

#218.

Okay, I take back that comment. Uncalled for, I agree.

But still, I don’t understand how some people can consider Godard a better director than Spielberg.

220. Vultan - March 24, 2013

I’d argue that Spielberg’s movies do occasionally cross over into pure cinematic artistry. Look at Close Encounters. The main character essentially abandons his family to go hang out with the aliens. Now granted, much of his journey is the fault of the aliens, but he does make that choice—his choice—at the end. And I don’t see that as a crowd-pleasing message. It’s not safe. It’s different, some might even argue it’s controversial. But totally thought-provoking, I think. What would you do in that situation?

I miss that Spielberg….

221. dmduncan - March 24, 2013

213. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle – March 24, 2013

Spare me.

I’m not the one trying to influence people’s opinions about a director whose work they haven’t seen. You could have answered the question without telling anyone what to think about him. Which is why when I answered the question I just gave his full name for people to google.

When I talk about Spielberg I think it’s safe to assume most of us on this site are familiar with his work and can relate to what I may point out.

Not so with Godard.

So all you really did with those quotes was tell people like RDR that they can ignore his opinion because Werner Herzog—a man whose films can put me face down in my soup in under 5 minutes—doesn’t like him. If a Herzog movie and a Spielberg movie were playing in adjacent theaters, and I accidentally got locked in the Herzog movie, I would CLAW my way through the wall to get into the Spielberg movie.

So why focus on Godard? Except, that is, to block for Spielberg?

If anyone really wants to discuss Spielberg, as opposed to impeaching an absent critic of Spielberg—Godard is not available to have that discussion, but I am.

222. Michael Hall - March 24, 2013

“But still, I don’t understand how some people can consider Godard a better director than Spielberg.”

Well, you might try actually watching at least some of his films and comparing them (along with seeing how they also influenced) Spielberg’s body of work, though actually I doubt that will ultimately change your mind. In the end I would also suggest Googling the Latin phrase “De gustibus non est disputandum,” which is as good a way of putting into perspective these opinions about whose work is “better” as any I know.

223. MJ - March 25, 2013

I believe DM Duncan has a degree in film and actually makes some movies, if I am not mistaken? Given that, he has a right to share his informed opinion on Spielberg, since he is actually a professional in the same field as Spielberg.

When you are in the film field though, obviously their are a lot of people in the more experimental and art side who will always thumb their noses at a Speilberg, JJ, Lucas, etc. Those “commercial directors” are never thought of very highly by the cinema house elite hardcore filmmakers like DM (who I admire), and the “art-Euro” filmmakers who always come across as so self-important and obtuse (who I don’t admire).

So that is why when I hear some of some obscure French guy critical Spielberg, I take it with a grain of salt. I respect DM’s opinion more that some French art film guy that apparently even Bergman thought boring. If Bergman, who made some of the most boring and overrated films of all time thinks this Godard’s films are boring, then Godard’s films must truly be like watching paint dry.

224. MJ - March 25, 2013

“If a Herzog movie and a Spielberg movie were playing in adjacent theaters, and I accidentally got locked in the Herzog movie, I would CLAW my way through the wall to get into the Spielberg movie,”

Amen, DMD. The only film of his that I loved with no issues was Rescue Dawn.

225. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - March 25, 2013

Re: dmduncan

Well you complained that I interjected my opinions of Jean Luc Godard because he can’t be here to himself to discuss Steven Spielberg, but then you go right off and do that yourself by interjecting Werner Herzog to make your point that Steven Spielberg is a better director than Herzog?

So, have you brought Werner Herzog here to discuss with us? I don’t see him here?

If you are gong to give me guidelines in this discussion that you want me to follow, then please live by these same guidelines yourself.

Fair enough?

226. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

222. Michael Hall – March 24, 2013

It isn’t always about taste, though. The influence on Spielberg by Capra in Spielberg’s technique is demonstrable. When director A is innovative and director B is not, it really does come down to features of their films that are there.

Godard has made a LOT of stuff and you can always find something in there to knock, but he’s also raw, wild—and fun without a blockbuster budget.

And I don’t say Spielberg is a bad movie-maker. He isn’t. I say he falls short of greatness. To me he’s like Icarus. The wax keeps melting from his wings.

227. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

225. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle – March 25, 2013

Where do you see me quoting irrelevant authorities giving their opinions about a director whose work people on this site haven’t seen to impeach his views?

It even seems to have worked on RDR.

Your quotes were fallacious appeals to authority impeaching Godard’s opinion, and you won’t find me making that mistake.

Instead, I gave my personal view of Herzog the SAME way I gave my personal view of Spielberg. Unlike what you just did, which was to try and skew people’s opinions about Godard using the opinions of some well known filmmakers.

When you find me doing the same thing, then you let me know.

Or you can just go back and compare how you answered MJs question with how I answered it for a lesson in how NOT to use an appeal to authority.

228. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

Oh, and don’t even TRY to say I was appealing to Godard’s opinion. I was listening to it and discovered I agreed. If he said something different than what I thought, I would have disagreed just as fast.

229. MJ - March 25, 2013

“And I don’t say Spielberg is a bad movie-maker. He isn’t. I say he falls short of greatness. To me he’s like Icarus. The wax keeps melting from his wings.”

This is what I don’t get? What more does the guy have to do to be great?

Lincoln and The Dark Knight (Nolan) were hands down, in my opinion, the best films of 2012, and I was stunned that the pedestrian Argo won over Lincoln, and that Spielberg didn’t win Best Director. War Horse was one of his better films as well — I love that movie.

The guy is still on top of his field after five decades. He should have multiple Oscars, but the film elite is jealous of him, because of his success. If anything, the guy is under-appreciated. That is my opinion.

230. MJ - March 25, 2013

correction: The Dark Knight Rises

231. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

218. Michael Hall – March 24, 2013

dmduncan, though I don’t really see your point about ‘propaganda’ we’re very much agreed about Spielberg’s career overall. As a master showman and brilliant craftsman he’s made billions of dollars for the entertainment conglomerates he’s worked for, and brought some measure of joy to the lives of countless people. All very admirable, and none of which makes him a true artist, let alone a brilliant one.

***

I agree with you on Spielberg there.

On the propaganda question:

Movies are cultural events. Especially Spielberg movies. They fit within the context of the times.

I was disturbed by Lincoln. Not that it was made, but that it came when it did at a time, as I said, when there is this Lincolnization of Barack Obama AND we’ve got a thinker up at West Point preparing the future leaders of this country’s army to think of this nation’s citizens as possible enemies they will face.

I’m not joking. Read Challengers From The Sidelines. In between various racist groups, Arie Perliger, the author of that thing, groups as possible terrorist threats people who “support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government.”

No, he’s not talking about American Indians. The US Army already won that fight in the most disgraceful way. No, now he’s talking about people like me, possibly Bob Orci, and possibly even you.

If Obama is the modern Lincoln, you can’t have the full Lincoln without a civil war.

And Lincoln makes such great propaganda to convince people of the righteousness of civil war. I don’t think civil war is acceptable, but I think Lincoln helps to legitimize thinking about it today.

Nobody will say they want civil war, but if we “have” to have one, well Lincoln is just the motivational speech a certain segment of people are going to need to convince themselves they are doing the right thing.

Just as John Ford helped to keep American Indians marginalized as the bad guys in his own cinematic propaganda, I am very disturbed by what amounts to propaganda that supports the rightness of civil war at a time in our history when people are drawing so many parallels between the two presidents AND there appears to be a growing backlash against a powerful corporate-federal government that people increasingly see as not serving them.

It’s the timing of the thing that I find gruesome.

Not that they consciously intend the parallels, or a similar outcome, but it doesn’t really matter.

We don’t really understand our unconscious selves or how we slowly make our worst nightmares come true in the most “innocent” and “accidental” ways.

Sort of like what happened to the Krell in Forbidden Planet.

232. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

229: “This is what I don’t get? What more does the guy have to do to be great?”

Well, Spielberg sorta has the greatness of Nolan Ryan. How about that?

He’s never told a story badly and Raiders is, I think, a perfect film. I can never say Spielberg has done a bad job, even when he takes some bizarre detour into the basement of creepy Tim Robbins, as he did in War of the Worlds, a movie which I really liked until Tim Robbins showed up in it.

Even that didn’t totally spoil the film for me.

Except for Schindler’s List, Raiders, CE3K, Jurassic Park and it’s first sequel, there seems to be a point in a Spielberg movie when he does something inexplicable that loses me.

Do agree with you on Argo, however.

233. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

And I like Tim Robbins. I’m not knocking him. But that whole scene with him was out of nowhere.

234. Robe - March 25, 2013

In the last movie women wore male uniform with pants, miniskirt with long sleeves and miniskirt with short sleeves.
So two out of three uniform options show rank.

235. Iva - March 25, 2013

198. captain_neill – March 24, 2013

MJ, I know its an alternate universe, you don’t have to speak to me as if I am dumb.

I just was under the impression that not everything would be so draticaly changed as a result.

_________________________________________–

Yeah, it’s not even an alternate universe but a timeline that split by Nero going through the balck hole. Everything should be changed only to the degree it was affected by the destruction of Kelvin and everything prior to birth of Kirk should be identical to TOS.

Except somehow Kelvin blowing up eradicated Spock’s personalty, rewired his neural pathways, made him less intelligent, less professional, less a Vulcan and he got a taste for sleeping around with his cadet students?

236. Aurore - March 25, 2013

181. dmduncan – March 24, 2013

“Raiders, I think, is the best movie of its kind ever to be made.”
______

I’m a fan of Indiana Jones. I like the character.
I like Harrison Ford as the character.

But, my favourite movie of the saga was The Last Crusade.
‘Haven’t watched the last movie with Shia LaBeouf.

“I also loved Jurassic Park, but I’m a dinosaur loving man, so I was an easy score on that one.”

I am a Jeff Goldblum loving woman, so he’s one of the MAJOR reasons why I went to see the movie.
Richard Attenborough’s role in the story was an interesting one, to me, as well. What a tragic character.

Best line of the film, for me:

“Life finds a way.”

237. MJ - March 25, 2013

@231. Sheesh, I didn’t see anything or take anything about Lincoln in relation to Obama. Obama couldn’t hold Lincoln’s jockstrap. Sorry, I did not make the connection, and I did not get that from the movie.

And you worrying about legitimacy of the Civil War…dude, seriously, how do you sleep at night. God Bless you, my friend, for still struggling with that 150 years later. :-)

238. MJ - March 25, 2013

….plus, the whole point of the movie was working across the isle for a greater good, and the movie was partially based on Team of Rivals, which covered how his cabinet included “uncomfortable people” who challenged Lincoln. Obama fails on all these points, so again, I don’t get your comparison to Obama that you think Spielberg is trying to make?

239. Aurore - March 25, 2013

I apologise if I misread some of the posts on this thread, but, I wished to say….

…Jean-Luc Godard still lives…

:)

He’s 82.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Luc_Godard

240. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 25, 2013

@235. Iva

“Except somehow Kelvin blowing up eradicated Spock’s personalty, rewired his neural pathways, made him less intelligent, less professional, less a Vulcan and he got a taste for sleeping around with his cadet students?”

I do not agree with any of the descriptors you have used here for the Alternative timeline Spock. What we do see is a far younger Spock than we saw in TOS. Is his personality different from that of his Prime counterpart at the same age? We actually have no idea! Wait, yes we do – The Cage – Spock was emotive: raising his voice and actually smiling. Yes, I am aware that some choose to discount this episode because this was the 1st pilot and Spock’s personality had not been settled into the stoic Vulcan we know and love. So you can say he was more emotive when he was younger, OR you can say we have no idea what he was like when he was younger. We certainly know that his life has been changed dramatically from the Prime timeline when he loses both his planet and his mother.

Was he less professional? For example, in the Prime timeline, he hijacked the Enterprise to take Pike to Talos IV, in breach of General Order 7 which carried the death penalty.

Was he less Vulcan? In the Prime timeline, he and his father did not speak to each other for over 18 years because of his decision to choose Starfleet over the VSA. How is that logical?

…a taste for sleeping around with his cadet students? And you make that
sweeping statement based on the fact he was in a romantic relationship with a cadet who had at one time been one of his students. If we go by the Star Trek Ongoing comics (specifically #18), then this relationship started once she was no longer his student, and was becoming a serious Vulcan-style courtship. Even if you discount the comics as not being truly canon, you still have no evidence for such a sweeping statement. I have no idea whether such an association actually strayed into the realm of fraternisation in 23rd century Starfleet. My interpretation was that Spock’s concern with the ‘appearance of favouritism’ in the incident on the hangar deck was not because their relationship was a secret; but because it wasn’t – otherwise why would anyone have blinked twice if he’d put her on Enterprise in the first place? In any case a single relationship hardly constitutes ‘a taste for sleeping around’.

Before anyone accuses me of taking a fictional character way too seriously, let me pre-empt them: I do. The character Spock has been my hero and motivator since I was 12 – a long, long time ago. I have yet to see anything done with the character in the reboot that has made me go: ‘wait a minute, they just ruined the character – that’s not Spock’, because, in my opinion, they haven’t.

241. captain_neill - March 25, 2013

I was wanting to know if the decision to make Carol marcus a Starfleet officer came from a book I have not read or a decision of the writing team here?

242. Jack - March 25, 2013

I don’t think so, Neill. But I’d argue that nothing we saw in Trek II rules it out, even for that timeline. Sure, David argues that scientists have always been pawns of the military etc…. bit that doesn’t make it impossible for His mother to have been in Starfleet decades previously.

243. Aurore - March 25, 2013

@ dmduncan

There seems to be different versions of the story, but, until today I did not know about this ( link if authorized, here ) :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-director-who-ignored-hollywood-2063267.html

244. Curious Cadet - March 25, 2013

@234. Robe,
“In the last movie women wore male uniform with pants, miniskirt with long sleeves and miniskirt with short sleeves. So two out of three uniform options show rank.”

That’s all well and good that they have options for the women, and yes I recall seeing some of those uniforms on background extras and having this discussion when the first movie came out. But the only featured female officer, Uhura, never wore any of those variants. It would have helped the producer’s cause had Uhura just once put on a pair of pants, or wore long sleeves. You know like Kirk in TMP. Speaking of which, why aren’t there any short sleeve variants for the men? You know like the real Navy … Although, they would have to have duty sleeveless muscle shirts to come close to the female variant. And as far as that goes, shouldn’t the guys have shorts as options too? They have them in the real Navy, right?

But I’m sorry, those other female uniforms are merely there to deflect sexist criticism since the characters choose to wear them as they have other options. Never mind that it’s the producers who dress the characters. This observation is made abundantly clear by the fact that the featured principal actors wear only the mini skirt with short sleeves, and NO rank. And pointing to the background actors is like saying “hey there’s lots of non-white actors and aliens cast in this, right there walking around behind the speaking actors”. The subtle implication is that the men wear the pants, where rank and position matter, but at least for the women they pay attention to, there is no rank which diminishes their importance, and they dress like 1960s secretaries rather than in practical military duty uniforms like the men. The other women walking around in the background may have rank, but they aren’t important enough (or sexy enough) to pay attention to.

@242. Jack,
“that doesn’t make it impossible for His mother to have been in Starfleet decades previously.”

I too would agree with that. What better reason to have such strong opinions about Starfleet than to have had first hand experience. Perhaps she enlisted as a cadet, met Kirk, got pregnant, then dropped out of Starfleet to have David. Or perhaps she dropped out first, disagreeing with what she learned as a cadet, but kept dating Kirk and got pregnant just before he got deployed on his first five year mission …

245. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

237: “And you worrying about legitimacy of the Civil War…dude, seriously, how do you sleep at night. God Bless you, my friend, for still struggling with that 150 years later. :-)”

Lol, no thankfully, I am not.

No, what I’m saying is what I feel, and you have to understand it in the context of what I know to be true. I’ve noticed a trend to what I call Lincolnize Obama. Legitimate or not, it’s been happening. Just google “Lincoln and Obama” to start.

I began to notice it coming from certain talking heads on TV, and you can find plenty of print sources for the trend.

Knowing all this and what Arie Perliger has been writing for West Pointer consumption, I began to feel that Lincoln can be viewed not as a mere positive historical account of something we did in the past, but as propagandistic justification for something to do again at some point in the future to hold our nation together against some other perceived existential threat to the union.

Lincoln to me is propaganda because of the zeitgest in which it was born. So it’s subtle and contextual rather than flagrant, like caricatures of Japanese people in WW2. It’s more like Indians always being portrayed as the bad guys next to the good guy cowboys and the cavalry.

White people often don’t understand the effect on Indian people those movies had. And I’m suggesting a similar unawareness regarding the effect of Lincoln in supporting the principle of civil war in the future at a time when there are people on the left and right who are actually talking about the idea.

I just don’t even want to go there.

246. Yanks - March 25, 2013

I’ll have to see the magazine. The characters just looked all fraked up in the picture. Is that Bones?

247. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

236. Aurore – March 25, 2013

I actually find myself thinking a lot of that Goldblum quote that “life finds a way.”

I thought The Last Crusade had a very strong beginning. The childhood adventure of young Indy was brilliant.

I can tell you exactly what I think all the subsequent films lacked that the original had, but I’m interested to know why you favor The Last Crusade.

248. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

243. Aurore – March 25, 2013

Hilarious.

249. Less Protein Equals Less Passion - March 25, 2013

Uhura’s skirt seems much shorter than Dr Marcus’s in the Empire photo

Just saying….

250. boborci - March 25, 2013

245. fascinating

251. Michael Hall - March 25, 2013

dmduncan–

“I was disturbed by Lincoln. Not that it was made, but that it came when it did at a time, as I said, when there is this Lincolnization of Barack Obama AND we’ve got a thinker up at West Point preparing the future leaders of this country’s army to think of this nation’s citizens as possible enemies they will face.”

I don’t claim to be any expert on the subject, but if Lincoln was indeed viewed in his time as a dangerous radical by his enemies and a squishy milquetoast by his earstwhile allies–and sources as diverse as Kearns Goodwin, William Safire, and Gore Vidal all do seem to portray him that way–then comparisons to Obama’s public persona are, in fact, inevitable. I don’t see how this has anything to do with a prior intention by Spielberg, Tony Kushner, or any of the actors, and find your supposition that the film represents some kind of attempt to “soften up” the American public for a second Civil War to be pretty farfetched, at best.

(That said, I’ve long suspected that the American republic will not survive past mid-century in its current form, and see fewer and fewer reasons as time goes on to change that opinion.)

252. crazydaystrom - March 25, 2013

245. dmduncan –
“Lincoln to me is propaganda because of the zeitgest in which it was born.”

If it is indeed propaganda, DMD, do you this was deliberate on Spielberg’s part? And he spent 12 years researching the film, most of that time before becoming aware of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book ‘Team of Rivals’ on which the film was based. Though “the zeitgest in which it was born” IS just that, there was a fairly long gestation period preceeding that birth.

253. Red Dead Ryan - March 25, 2013

Yeah, okay guys, I think I’ll check out a couple of Godard’s films so that I can base a true opinion on him instead of going by what others have said.

You’ll have to excuse last night, I had a headache, and I want to say that I am sorry to dmduncan and Michael Hall. I was being an ass.

Anyway, I thought the movie “Lincoln” was great. And I agree that it was obvious that Spielberg released the movie around the time of the presidential election. He’s an Obama supporter.

Still, the movie has to be judged on its own merits. Obama will never regarded as highly as Lincoln. I doubt anyone (except JFK, possibly) will approach his stature as the greatest U.S leader.

254. PEB - March 25, 2013

Wow Anton, Zach, and Chris are looking fine in that fold out!

255. Michael Hall - March 25, 2013

No prob. You may end up enjoying Godard’s work, or not. Many years ago I took a friend to see a revival screening of “Citizen Kane” which left him totally unimpressed–he could not view the work in the context of its time, and so was only able to focus on the (by current standards) over-the-top acting and other anachronisms. I, in turn, happen to like Herzog’s films (particularly his recent documentary on ancient cave paintings) more than does dmduncan, and also thought that LINCOLN was just fine, if a little overrated. The point is, there’s no right or wrong answer on these things. :-)

256. captain_neill - March 25, 2013

What Star Trek films and episodes are your favourites?

Do you think the mainstream audience would be up for something featuring non coporeal entities?

257. captain_neill - March 25, 2013

bob_orci

Can I ask if it was a creative decsion to make Carol a starfleet officer or was it in a book?

258. The Sinfonian - March 25, 2013

Neill: Take a look at Memory Beta, which notes the old TOS comic, where Carol was in Starfleet Academy at the same time as Kirk and Mitchell. It’s interesting:
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Carol_Marcus

Note particularly how she was drawn in the old comic. It’s like they predicted Alice Eve decades ahead! ;)

259. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

252. crazydaystrom – March 25, 2013

That’s an excellent and important question and my views on that go even farther into the deep end of the pool. I’m not implying conspiracy. I’d suggest that the unconscious mind is a very mysterious thing, and it knows a lot more than anyone in their conscious hours suspects.

The direct answer to your question is no, I have no reason to believe pre-planning was involved on that time-scale, but I also want to emphasize that is not the end of the story.

260. Keachick - March 25, 2013

Actually I called for a variation in what both men and women wore in Starfleet quite some time ago, arguing why men could not have the option of wearing shorts as well as long pants, short and longsleeved shirts. Instead what they have done is dress the men up even more – god, those grey outfits look horribly hot and sweaty to have to be dressed in for too long and well, the women are wearing pretty much what they wore in the first Star Trek movie. I don’t see why the sleeves could not be slightly longer on the women’s dresses so that rank can be easily sewn in and seen. Another option could be to have the rank sewn into the neck line on both the men’s and women’s uniforms.

Of course, this all may be deliberate on the producers/writers’ part. Perhaps they are showing an alternate universe where things go horribly wrong and that tyranny rules, along with obvious sexism and racism etc. Women like Lt Uhura and Carol Marcus really do have to struggle to be acknowledged and accepted by this new unholy status quo, a place where only a few like Spock and Kirk are prepared to see their potential and give them their well earned opportunities to do what they have been trained to do.

I do hope this is not the case, because what we (audiences) do need/want to see is a society where many of the silly, bad attitudes towards ourselves and others no longer dominate our perceptions and behaviour…

261. MJ - March 25, 2013

DMD, might is just be possible that your level or intelligence (I’m not being sarcastic) and thinking on this matter about this movie is such that you are predetermined to see these sorts of trends in the Lincoln movie whether Spielberg, the writers, the author of Team of Rivals, and the actors ever intended for this message you say in there to get out?

My couple of takaways (in relation to your comments) after the seeing the movie:

(1) Why can’t politicians work across the aisle like that more today?

(2) Don’t want us ever to have to go through a war like that again

(3) Wish presidents today (i.e. Obama, Bush) could hold a candle to Lincoln’s leadership.

(4) Daniel Day Lewis the best movie actor of all time.

Obviously, I did not perceive the hidden messages that your were worried about?

262. Allenburch - March 25, 2013

189. boborci, “Plus, lets see if paramount wants us back!”

The real question is, Do you want to come back for more Star Trek?

263. boborci - March 25, 2013

257. Don’t know if it was any book because I have read many but not all. It was a creative decision on our part based on the changes in the alternate universe.

264. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

261. MJ – March 25, 2013

Well it’s not the movie all by itself MJ. Certain types of propaganda are flagrant and self contained. We’ve probably all seen old WW2 reels of the Japanese caricatures with the buck teeth, or old Soviet posters.

Others become that when inserted as a link in a chain.

So it isn’t just what you get from the film by itself. It’s how it fits into a chain of other links that other people are independently sticking together to make the chain. And then I take notice the chain rather than the bag of disconnected links, which I wouldn’t do if a lot of people other than me weren’t putting the links together that way (because I don’t naturally associate Obama with Lincoln).

See I didn’t come up with the idea, I just noticed the pattern of associations in the zeitgeist.

It doesn’t necessarily come together by any coordinated political strategy, although I have NO doubt that some aspects were consciously emphasized by certain political operatives in the media who thought it was a good idea to make people think “Lincoln” when they heard “Obama.”

But overall it’s stranger than that.

265. singularity87 - March 25, 2013

That poster seems to suggest that Eve’s character is part of the regular crew.

Could it be the case that she will be a regular in this version going forward (or at least the next film)?

That would make some sense going forward, given the fact that TOS only had one woman as part of the regular cast.

266. Phil - March 25, 2013

@260. Actually, it’s been explained plenty of times, you chose to reject those positions. As you are not bringing anything new to the table, your point has been noted….

267. Phil - March 25, 2013

Oh…wow. People are just making s**t up as they go now.

268. Keachick - March 25, 2013

Everyone here is making s**t up as they go, because a) none of us have seen the complete STID movie and b) re the Lincoln movie – a particular poster has a slightly take on the movie than many might have.

#266 Neither does anyone else bring anything new to the table re anything…:(

269. Aurore - March 25, 2013

247. dmduncan – March 25, 2013
236. Aurore – March 25, 2013

“I actually find myself thinking a lot of that Goldblum quote that “life finds a way.”
________

How so, if I may ask?

“I’m interested to know why you favor The Last Crusade.”

For me, Indiana Jones always was a man of action, an adventurer . And I really liked his style.

But, I did not really “know” him…

In The Last Crusade, I learned a little about his childhood, saw him teach a class ( sort of ), and more importantly, discovered that he had a complicated relationship with his father.

The father and son relationship compelled me to see the movie several times [ on television, anytime it was posssible. “Jean-Luc ” (Godard) would forgive me, I’m sure… :) ]

It was the first time I could really relate to the character, in so far as, until then, he had essentially felt like a very likeable character.

With that movie, he felt somewhat “real”, to me.

“I thought The Last Crusade had a very strong beginning. The childhood adventure of young Indy was brilliant.

I can tell you exactly what I think all the subsequent films lacked that the original had…”

I haven’t watched them in a long time, and, I don’t remember much about the first two movies, actually.

But, I’m intrigued.

dmduncan, could you tell me exactly what you think all the subsequent films lacked that the original had?

:)

270. Allenburch - March 25, 2013

@ 247. dmduncan
@ 269. Aurore

What would it take for an Indy V to properly send off Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones?

271. captain_neill - March 25, 2013

263

I suppose nothing in Wrath of Khan rules it out but I always assumed she was a civilian, David never spoke hghly of Starfleet in the film and she did not want David in that life.

But whatever. I do prefer the prime universe but I look forward to seeing what you have.

272. K-7 - March 25, 2013

#271. Let go of the prime universe….been there, done that.

273. MJ - March 25, 2013

Yes K-7,

I mean what would be the point of having the new timeline if all the characters behaved the same. Captain Neill, although at the surface claims to understand this, keeps posting over and over with things like this that shows to me that he really doesn’t get the alternate timeline concept.

274. MJ - March 25, 2013

@269.

The Last Crusade was also my favorite of the Indy movies.

275. Red Dead Ryan - March 25, 2013

#272 and 273.

Spot on, guys. The prime universe is done as far as I’m concerned. At least when it comes to live action “Star Trek”. The PU will continue in on in video games, novels, comics, toys, etc.

Captain Neill reminds me of George Costanza from that episode of “Seinfeld” where he kept claiming how great Bozo The Clown was while scoffing at other clowns, saying how no one can compete with Bozo. :-)

276. Red Dead Ryan - March 25, 2013

#274. and 269.

“The Last Crusade” is totally underrated, in my opinion. It’s almost as good as “Raiders Of The Lost Ark”. It really fleshed out Indy, not just as an archaelogist but as a man. Sean Connery put in one of his finest performances.

TLC is one of the rare “third film” that is great. Goes alongside “Return Of The Jedi”, “The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly”, “Goldfinger”, “Star Trek III: The Search For Spock”, “The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King”, “Back To The Future Part III” and “The Dark Knight Rises”.

277. MJ - March 25, 2013

Here are the Spielberg movies that I absolutely love:

2012 Lincoln

2011 War Horse

2005 War of the Worlds

2002 Catch Me If You Can

2002 Minority Report

2001 A.I. Artificial Intelligence

1998 Saving Private Ryan

1993 Schindler’s List

1993 Jurassic Park

1989 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

1987 Empire of the Sun

1985 The Color Purple

1982 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark

1979 1941

1977 Close Encounters of the Third Kind

1975 Jaws

278. Ahmed - March 25, 2013

K-7, MJ & RDR, you guys do realize that the alternate timeline wouldn’t have existed if it wasn’t for the prime universe in the first place, right ?

279. Red Dead Ryan - March 25, 2013

#277.

I have seen most of those movies, and I enjoyed them. I haven’t seen “The Color Purple”, “War Horse”, “Catch Me If You Can”, “A.I.”, and “1941”, though. Wasn’t a fan of “War Of The Worlds”.

But all the other movies you mentioned are total classics.

Based on that list, Steven Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time.

CASE CLOSED!!!

280. Red Dead Ryan - March 25, 2013

#278.

Your point?

281. MJ - March 25, 2013

@278. Ahmed, I this new timeline is labeled “alternate,” because is deviates from the original prime timeline. That is how is works. You see, both timelines would exist, but the new one would deviate more and more over time. Let me know if you have any more questions. dude?

282. DiscoSpock - March 25, 2013

277 – You know, one forgets how many very good movies Spielberg has made until you see them in a list like this.

283. Ahmed - March 25, 2013

MJ, I like the way you expressed it here, the acknowledgement that both timelines exist & not dismissing the Prime Timeline which was the impression that I got from reading some of the posts here.

btw, that is a great list of Spielberg films. The guy along with Lucas literally invented the concept of summer blockbuster in late 1970s.

You forget the 1971 TV movie “Duel”, that was one of the first movies by Spielberg that I watched & loved.

284. MJ - March 25, 2013

“You forget the 1971 TV movie “Duel”, that was one of the first movies by Spielberg that I watched & loved.”

Great movie!

285. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

270. Allenburch – March 25, 2013

@ 247. dmduncan
@ 269. Aurore

What would it take for an Indy V to properly send off Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones?

***

AH! I actually have given that some thought and I DO have a good answer. I’ve written the last page of how I think the final Indiana Jones movie should end. I don’t know the rest of the story, but I’ve got an ending that will make fans smile and and say, “Way to go, Indy!”

But since Bob is the only guy in Hollywood (at least that I know about) who occasionally reads my comments, and he’s not involved with the Indy franchise…what’s the point?

I’m a butthead. ;-)

286. Allenburch - March 25, 2013

@ 285. dmduncan

We’re both in the same wagon, pal. Gotta get an agent.

287. dmduncan - March 25, 2013

269. Aurore – March 25, 2013

How so, if I may ask?

Whenever I notice in the real world the same set of circumstances regarding which that line was spoken in the movie, and I notice them a lot in monitoring scientific and political developments that try to control the movement of life in one way or the other and fail.

Our entire civilization is a membrane on the surface of a wild planet that effortlessly pierces through, whether it be as a blade of grass sprouting between cracks on a sidewalk in New York City, or raccoons that crawl out of the sewers and topple over the trash looking for food, or people that find a way to hold on to their customs, language, and beliefs in the face of attempted genocide. The raw power of nature, of life, which we belong to, is something we try to keep out—off our carpets and out of our well groomed hair.

And we think we are powerful because we think we are successful. In truth, we think that only because we have such a poor perception of how deep time is.

Life is real power. Politics and science are faux power that try to control real power.

288. dmduncan - March 26, 2013

269. Aurore – March 25, 2013

dmduncan, could you tell me exactly what you think all the subsequent films lacked that the original had?

***

In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones is a skeptic! An unbeliever. He just wants to find and save an artifact of priceless historical importance. He’s not buying into the mumbo jumbo of the ark having the power of God!

And we don’t know what to make of it either. We are not sure how it’s going to turn out. So when they open it and nothing happens, and we see that smirk on Indy’s face that says, “you idiots! You really thought it had supernatural power!,” we feel what Indy feels.

And THEN…the magic starts happening…and Indy realizes he’s WRONG!

Oh MY!

And he tells Marion to shut her eyes! Don’t open them for ANYTHING!!!

And we take that journey with him from skeptic to believer, but WE get to see what he does not.

Well…my friends…that is a check you can only cash once!

Once you are a believer, once you KNOW the supernatural happens, you can’t take that journey again, you can’t go back to be the skeptic in every following movie and then have the same paradigm-changing discovery at the end. So each following Indiana Jones doesn’t have the same effect because you know now going in that there’s going to be something magical happening, and Indy is not going to be making a journey from skeptic to believer.

So, the problem with the following movies is that they follow the same recipe as Raiders, but they can’t use its spiciest ingredient—dramatic uncertainty; that journey Indy takes from skeptic to believer.

289. MJ - March 26, 2013

@288. Those are all good points, but you have Sean Connery as his dad in Indy 3, plus you’ve got Nazi German and Zeppelins, plus an immortal Knight Templar — with a great story to tie this all together.

That’s why I liked three the best, although I understand your comments.

290. LizardGirl - March 26, 2013

UNIFORMS:

I think the new female uniforms are PURELY a creative nod to the TOS ones. I don’t think it’s them trying to be sexist. But I’ve seen other variations in ST09 which makes me believe they were also giving a nod to other franchises as well–not alluding to smart, in command women not being pretty enough to get face time! I think people would be more upset if the girls weren’t wearing dresses. Except for Deanna Troy and (oddly) a few male extras, it is the only franchise where they DO wear them.

Also, why do some think that wearing a dress makes a woman preceived as weak in the company of male professionals? If the woman is a professional, and doesn’t lack confidence in herself, then a dress can be a powerful thing! Also, these actors and the characters they play own it! They’re not simpering or unprofessional like some of the female officers were in TOS.

And while I won’t act completely oblivious to some of the more blatant displays of sexism, even to the softer displays in the original series, I won’t put everything in one pot either. The type of dresses that the females wore in TOS were in style OUTSIDE of the studio, so putting it in context and considering the culture of the 60s concerning women, it isn’t too outrageous.

But you definitely wouldn’t see this today! These dresses are longer which is nice. My strongest, personal wish would be that they wear dark tights to polish the look. Or perhaps black leggings that would let a shorter dress/tunic type thing be acceptable without offending anyone. I wouldn’t mind a long sleeve varient for the main female cast either. And for some reason…the dresses look very stiff. Not the worst thing in the world though, but I’ve seen more form flattering dresses at Target.

291. captain_neill - March 26, 2013

272- I know its not coming back but am I not allowed to like it any more?

Must I only be allowed to like the new universe because it is the in thing? I like the last movie and I look forward to Into Darkness, but I also love TNG and looking forward to seeing Season 3 on blu ray.

I know the prime universe is not coming back anytime soon but why do people make it wrong for still having a preference over it?

292. captain_neill - March 26, 2013

I am going to re watch and re evaluate the last movie. I have it and I have enjoyed it as a movie in it’s own right. Perhaps after a few rewatchs I perhaps became too unkind, Iperhaps I focused on the elements of the film that did not work for me because it was different from the way I loved the show. The characters, the thought provoking stories, a positive view of the future and stories that dealt with the human condition, through characters such as Spock, Data, Odo, etc.

I admit that because Abrams was aiming at the non fans for Star Trek using comments like “OH I am not making this movie for Star Trek fans” when doing a Trek film yet his comment to Star Wars fans is “I want to do them proud” which to me irriated me because as a person who prefers Trek it seemed that Abrams was going to give more love to Star Wars because he himself is a fan of that franchise.

As Into Darkness approaches I am going to rewatch the last movie and everythime I watch it, but to me it is a god movie in its own right, I just don’t think it’s the best ever Trek film, perhaps only in box office terms but I still think some of the previous movies are stronger. This doesn’t mean I hate the new movie but I just think it could have been better and some things were sacrificed to make it more appealing to those mainstream kids who don’t get Trek.

I apologise if I have focused on the negatives and gone on about it and yes I will admit I still prefer the previous crews. But look it has been over 30 years since the original Star Wars trilogy and the are stil vastly superior over the more recent prequel trilogy.

I prefer the prime universe and always will but at least I am going Into Darkness hoping to be proven wrong in my concerns of the changes. Nothing would make me happier than to come out of Into Dakness and say that’s a Trek film. Having seen the trailer I know I am going to love it as a movie but to feel the Trek magic back would be great.

I wont go on about it.

293. Aurore - March 26, 2013

270. Allenburch – March 25, 2013

@ 247. dmduncan
@ 269. Aurore

What would it take for an Indy V to properly send off Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones?
_______

My first reaction, upon reading your post was to yell ; ” A compelling story ! ”

And, truth be told, I have no idea what this could be ; to me, The Last Crusade was a perfect send off, as it were.

My only “regret” then was that I would no longer see the character at a time when I had just started to know him better…

294. Aurore - March 26, 2013

287. dmduncan – March 25, 2013

Thank you for your answer.

“Life finds a way.”

I agreed with that quote ( and, the lines that preceded it )…before watching the movie.

Which is why I was literally shocked to hear it, years ago.

…Then, a few years later, a somewhat similar experience happened to me…again.

This time, with a “real life” character :

(link if authorized, here)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

295. Aurore - March 26, 2013

288. dmduncan – March 26, 2013

Interesting points! Very interesting!

I might have to re-watch the original.

Thank you very much for your reply.

296. The Sinfonian - March 26, 2013

283/284 Don’t forget there’s an extended theatrical version of Duel, where Spielberg added the school bus sequence, and a lot of distance shots. That movie scared the bejeezus out of me as a kid when the original tv movie ran. Don’t know why my dad let me watch it… well, I do. They liked Dennis Weaver! Who didn’t like McCloud!

Interesting, as it seems the character Weaver plays, Mann, has an element of characterization that Trip Tucker had in Enterprise. Something of an everyman, that makes a great protagonist.

297. Aurore - March 26, 2013

Correction 294.

I agreed with that quote ( and, the lines that preceded it )…before watching the movie.

=

I agreed with that quote ( and, the lines that preceded it )…**EVEN** before watching the movie.

P.S. : Regarding the “real life” character, I discovered him, a few years ago, online.

298. Curious Cadet - March 26, 2013

@290. LizardGirl,
“Also, why do some think that wearing a dress makes a woman preceived as weak in the company of male professionals?”

There’s nothing wrong with the mini skirt sleeveless outfits. I have no objection to them, except when worn on away missions because they are wholly impractical and they no longer have the budget considerations of TOS to prevent wearing more appropriate attire.

But here’s the deal … I agree they are a nod to the original series, but seriously — I would love to hear the conversation that went on about where to put the rank, and ultimately why they decided it was unimportant.

I definitely don’t think the mere wearing of a dress in the company of male co-workers is a problem. The problem is when that dress conveys less authority than the male counterpart. It not only has less fabric, but it has less authority, literally. It visually implies that females wearing this “uniform” are equal to the lowest ranks of the military, regardless of whether they are a lieutenant or an admiral. Form over function. If I had to guess how that costume meeting ended it would be with this line: “who cares, nobody is going to be looking at her rank, have you seen Zoe in that outfit!? Whammy!”

And that’s my problem with it. Combined with the fact that men are not given similar options, so the women appear objectified in contrast. No rank, no identity, no authority … just skin.

299. Aurore - March 26, 2013

@287. dmduncan – March 25, 2013

…Despite the post I wrote @ 297( in order to clarify my point ), I still find my answer ( @ 294 ), confusing…

What I should have just said, from the start, is that I agree with the points you made.

:)

Thank you again for your reply.

300. Taco Joshie - March 26, 2013

I think we all need to remember, that if the network had let Robenberry have his way (or his original vision) the first officer of the enterprise would’ve been a woman. This was deemed “too far-fetched” and as a result Barett became a nurse. The women also originally wore pants. Another thing that vanished after the pilot (and is also sadly lacking in the correct iteration of the franchise – the women don’t even have their ranks on their uniforms). You also need up remember what MLK jnr told Nicholls when she wanted to quit the series. She was not only a role model to women, but to black people and the disadvantaged and discriminated against everywhere. So her role, whole smaller than McCoy’s was vital.

But by the time it got to TNG, Rodenerry had come a full 360 and women just became weepy mothers or emoters. You only have to hear McFadden or Sirtis interviewed to realise they didn’t start getting slightly more meaty stories until the 5th or 6th season.

301. Taco Joshie - March 26, 2013

*current and not correct.

302. Trekkiegal63 - March 26, 2013

#298 Curious Cadet:

There’s nothing wrong with the mini skirt sleeveless outfits. I have no objection to them, except when worn on away missions because they are wholly impractical and they no longer have the budget considerations of TOS to prevent wearing more appropriate attire.

Both excellent points. Pretty hard to run for your life from a pissed off Horta in a mining tunnel for stepping on her eggs or roundhouse kick a Gorn in a mini skirt. The disparity is unnecessary and superfluous.

303. Keachick - March 26, 2013

Except that the original TOS women wore VERY short dresses, not mini-skirts which went halfway down the thigh, which is what this new Star Trek has. This new Star Trek women’s uniform is more impractical than the TOS ones. With very short dresses, freedom of movement is far less restricted.

What the uniform needs to be is much what is fashionable among women today, attractive and practical. I wrote that much a couple of years ago. I also suggested that men are given more options in terms of ship attire. Both sexes have landing party attire appropriate to the (alien) conditions they may encounter.

I guess none of my suggestions have even been considered, let alone, adopted, it seems. I mean, what does someone like me, a mere woman, know – isn’t that right, Bob Orci, JJ Abrams and co – all men, I must note? (read sarcasm)…:((

304. Aurore - March 26, 2013

“What the uniform needs to be is much what is fashionable among women today, attractive and practical. I wrote that much a couple of years ago…”
_______

I was thinking about that a few days ago ; along with dmduncan, you did made a few comments on the “uniform question”, a couple of years ago:

(Posts 171& 176 amongst others)

http://trekmovie.com/2011/08/03/zachary-quinto-thinks-spock-should-be-rebuilding-the-vulcan-race/

305. Aurore - March 26, 2013

304.

did made = did make

306. Keachick - March 26, 2013

Thank you, Aurore.

307. Trekkiegal63 - March 26, 2013

#303 Keachick:

I do believe, then, that this would be the first time we’ve agreed on something (i.e. female uniforms are impractical).

… we’ll just leave out the part of the equation where I also feel they are sexist because you probably wont agree with me there, and instead simply bask in the ‘hey, we’re actually agreed for once’ novelty.

We should toast this momentous occasion… ;)

308. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

294. Aurore – March 26, 2013

Oh that’s a great clip. I like George Carlin and more often than not agree with him, and in that one I do especially. I hadn’t seen it before, either, so thanks!

I think Michael Crichton pointed out that the modern environmental movement has all the features of a religion, including a description of sinful behavior, prescriptions for atonement, and an apocalypse if we fail to reform, none of which I buy into.

The fear mongering about global changes are really about maintaining the status quo of the civilization we have, with its many bizarre philosophical quirks that I personally would not unbend a finger to help preserve from extinction if that is the fate measured out to them.

Oh, people are worth saving. I’m just not so sure that what they currently value is. We spend so much of our time building walls between us and nature and rationalizing why we need to do it.

The meek shall inherit the earth because they have not crystallized their egos in the peculiar architecture and machinery of a civilization that is out of balance with and cannot permanently survive on the earth, and thus they have never forgotten what it is to live on the earth as A People—which is the one thing you need to remember more than anything else to survive.

In other words, the meek shall inherit the earth by outlasting those who claim to own it.

:-)

309. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

304. Aurore – March 26, 2013

Sure, shove me in a time capsule and make me read what I wrote years ago. ;-)

Wow. Feels weird. Like agreeing with another person who also happens to be yourself!

310. Mad Mann - March 27, 2013

Re: Woman’s uniforms.

I agree the short sleeves and skirts are just stupid. They are totally impractical as a duty uniform and really just look like a sexy halloween costume version of the real thing (like sexy nurse).

Even Roddenberry, as some have mentioned, was against it. In the first two pilots all the women wore pants! I think it’d be cool to have Uhura and Marcus wear the halloween costume dresses at some point in the movie, but only a little as a homage to TOS, and nothing more. Here’s hoping….

311. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

I think these notions of practicality and “smart” fashion sense are expressions of the political and cultural biases of the moment. Seems to me it’s easy to detach those biases from these particular fashions without altering the fashions.

Were the Star Trek fashions designed to immobilize or hamper movement of women, then you could say they may have some political motivation integral to the design (and before anyone says “that’s easy for a man to say because you don’t wear skirts,” let me say that is true, but as a pants wearer and an active person, pants DO restrict my movement and catch on things during some of the work I have to do, causing me to curse all the extra fabric, or, to put it another way, ancient Egyptian soldiers wore skirts, and I imagine that was a pretty tough job).

Whether a woman wears a skirt because she wants to be attractive to a man, or she puts it on because SHE likes the way she looks in it (and I trust nobody will try to tell me she only likes the way she looks in a skirt SO THAT she appears attractive to a man), OR she wants to put it on to distinguish herself from a man which she is biologically distinguishable from, then the only thing that really changes from one case to the other is the reason in her head for putting it on.

The style of the cloth is blameless.

And the practicality of a piece of clothing is defined by the environment and working conditions it is designed for. There is no ONE uniform that fits all conditions because there is no one set of environmental and working conditions.

312. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

If I were writing the Starfleet uniform manual specifying when and where which uniform attire is appropriate, I would say that aboard vessels and on missions in temperate environments where no adventures seems likely to occur, then uniform choice may be the decision of the wearer, and the TOS styles are perfectly okay in those situations.

313. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

#312 dmduncan:

Respectfully disagree, and I’ll give you examples why:

“All Our Yesterdays”

“What Little Girls are Made Of”

“The Devil in the Dark”

“The Naked Time”

“Where No Man has Gone Before”

… and that is just a few (out of many) examples (I tried to post picture links but this site didn’t like that to much). Please note each terrain the away team encountered for the various environments in the episodes listed. Please note what skirts do not cover, i.e. legs, knees, etc. i.e. the picture for “What Little Girls are Made Of” that I tried to link had Chapel in her ultra mini TOS dress in a freakin’ rocky cavern. If one were to fall in the mines or on a rocky terrain while wearing a skirt, ones legs would get abrasions. If one were to navigate vegetation while wearing a skirt, one would get scratches and cuts. And lastly, if one where to join an away mission on a freakin’ cold planet with snow, ones legs would freeze. Solution? Pants! For everybody! Female, male and those of indeterminate gender!

(As a side note, ST:TNG had an episode, “The Outcast” where the Enterprise encountered a society where traditional gender ideologies where outlawed. And what did these non-genered aliens wear that they considered gender neutral?… Pants!)

That its also radically sexist that women are given uniforms with skimpy little skirts is another issue (though no less important).

And lastly, I’d like to point out, for like the hundredth time in so many weeks, that while TOS was wonderful and, in my opinion, the best of the Treks, it was a product of its time. There have been 47 years between then and now. One would hope that some progress towards equality would be made in 47 years, even in little things like uniforms.

314. Curious Cadet - March 27, 2013

@ 311 dmduncan,
“There is no ONE uniform that fits all conditions because there is no one set of environmental and working conditions.”

BDUs come very close wouldn’t you say?

But I agree with your next post @312. I would say however, that if we’ve learned nothing else from Star Trek, it’s that one never knows where or when adventure will ensue. Indeed I would argue that soldiers stationed in The middle east have seen this first hand, even in the relative safety of their own bases.

Imagine if you will that it was Uhura that Spock jettisoned from the Enterprise for being insubordinate. Kirk was wearing Nothing more than his duty uniform. Imagine Uhura walking through Delta Vega in her sleeveless mini-dress and knee-boots. Kirk’s only protection was a hooded parka. Doesn’t do much for up drafts on Uhura, much less crawling out of the hole her pod created.

I also agree that pants can restrict your movement, and Uhura might actually have an advantage in some situations in that short skirt. To that end, I see a lot of crew guys working on film sets and in construction who wear kilts. Why not give that option to the men. Heck it’s ancestral with Scotty. Even TNG put guys in skirts during the first season. At least give them shorts. TMP, from which the producers have already borrowed uniform stylings, had multiple outfits for eveyone. And those were of the finest spandex polyester, arguably allowing full freedom of motion, perhaps even greater comfort than a short skirt (a theory Roddenberry always put forward in his preferred costuming as reflected in both TMP and TNG). They even eschewed Bones trademark short sleeve shirt. If they were truly being pragmatic this is what they would do.

But no. That’s not the intent of these producers. You hit the nail on the head when you said it is the political and cultural expressions of the moment. Just like it was in 1966. I think the intent is clear, and that’s ultimately all that matters. It’s not about balance or practicality, it’s about representing something to the relevant audience. And skirts, shorts, yoga tights, Spandex shirts and short sleeves on guys in authority don’t fly these days, but mini skirts and sleeveless dresses are always in for women.

315. Curious Cadet - March 27, 2013

@314 MORE^^

I should add, mini skirts and short sleeves are in for women unless the producers really want to present a woman in a position of power. You will never see a female congresswoman, or FBI agent wearing a mini skirt, or sleeveless blouse while on duty (but you can sure bet if they are young and attractive, they will try to get them into one at a cocktail party or something similar).

Moreover, practicality often goes out the door for men as well. Notice women are seemingly encouraged to wear as little as possible at the beach. This could be seen as pragmatic, since Olympic swimmers wear very little as well to increase their speed and agility in the water. However, men, are discouraged from wearing as little as possible, at least in the US. Baggy board-short style swimwear is de rigueure for men despite being wholly impractical for water sports. But it is considered more masculine than wearing a speedo, which is almost universally derided as beachwear for men. Women remove their bikini tops to avoid tan lines, while men must endure tan lines down to their knees.

316. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

#315 Curious Cadet:

I should add, mini skirts and short sleeves are in for women unless the producers really want to present a woman in a position of power. You will never see a female congresswoman, or FBI agent wearing a mini skirt, or sleeveless blouse while on duty (but you can sure bet if they are young and attractive, they will try to get them into one at a cocktail party or something similar).

Excellent point. My office is more lax than most, so on the days we don’t have visitors from offsite, we’re allowed to wear jeans. However, when we do have company ‘dress up days’ the bulk of the women in my office, including myself, wear pant suits. And if, on the rare, rare occasion I see someone in a skirt suit (not as common anymore) the skirt goes to the knees or just above. Anything other than that would be inappropriate for a professional office environment.

317. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

313: “If one were to fall in the mines or on a rocky terrain while wearing a skirt, ones legs would get abrasions. If one were to navigate vegetation while wearing a skirt, one would get scratches and cuts.”

And I’ve been in physical situations where my clothing has got caught distracting attention I needed to put elsewhere to release myself, and it’s very annoying, and could even have worse consequences, which is why I say there’s no easy formula to determine appropriateness. You may think it’s appropriate going in until the real circumstances you experience forces you to change your mind. A skinned knee is not the worst that can happen, especially since modern clothes only give you a moderate level of protection. I get abrasions THROUGH my pants. I get cuts with pants on.

So I can actually see why Roman, Greek, and Egyptian soldiers would wear skirts. They have utilitarian value in situations where your life is on the line as well.

318. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

#317 dmduncan:

Rome is relatively termperate. Psi 2000 (“Naked Time”) and Sarpeidon (“All Our Yesterdays”) were not.

In addition, the Roman uniform was in no way standardized.

From Wikipedia:

However the concept of uniforms was not part of their culture and there were considerable differences in detail. Armor was not standardized and even that produced in state factories varied according to the province of origin. Likewise the Romans had no concept of obsolescence. Provided it remained serviceable, soldiers were free to use armour handed down by family members, buy armour from soldiers who had completed their service or wear discontinued styles of armour if they preferred it to (or could not afford) the latest issue. Thus it was common for legions to wear a mix of various styles that could cover a considerable time period.

Other garments and equipment included:
A tunic
The baldric, a belt worn over one shoulder that is typically used to carry a weapon (usually a sword) or other implement such as a bugle or drum
The balteus, the standard belt worn by the Roman legionary. It was probably used to tuck clothing into or to hold weapons.
Braccae (trousers), popular among Roman legionaries stationed in cooler climates to the north of southern Italy
Caligae, heavy-soled military shoes or sandals which were worn by Roman legionary soldiers and auxiliaries throughout the history of the Roman Republic and Empire.
The focale, a scarf worn by the Roman legionary to protect the neck from chafing caused by constant contact with the soldier’s armor
The loculus, a satchel, carried by legionaries as a part of their sarcina (marching pack)
The paludamentum, a cloak or cape fastened at one shoulder, worn by military commanders and (less often) by their troops

… Lastly, the issue of practicality. My daughter wore a school uniform up until the 8th grade. Female students had their choice of navy pants or navy skirts. During the winter months I would put either tights or leggings on her legs on the days she wore the skirts. Want to know how many tights and leggings she went through in a year because they would get holes in the knees? Too many to count! I could probably retire off the money I spent on them! Want to know how many abrasions she came home with because she fell and skinned her knees while wearing the skirt on her school’s blacktop? Too many to count! Know how many times she was injured because her pants caught on something on the day she wore those instead? Zero. I can’t recall one incident. So yeah, if we’re going for what trumps here…

319. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

@314: Well what’s cool about the TOS designs is how in my view they transcend the “intent” of the producers and the time. Uhura does NOT look dated in that miniskirt outfit in ST.09, because while that design may belong to the 1960’s, it does not belong ONLY to the 1960’s, and when I see her up there on the screen wearing that outfit, the 23rd century is what I see.

The same is true of the design of the Enterprise itself, of its bridge, of its shuttlecraft, of its phaser pistols.

320. Keachick - March 27, 2013

All the crew of STID look ridiculously overdressed in those grey uniforms with collars. They look like sweat bags – not practical or comfortable.

Gene Roddenberry may have wanted everyone to wear pants and turtlenecks, but I don’t think they would have necessarily been comfortable or practical either. The colourful, no collar style of men’s attire still beats everything that came before or since. The problem with the TOS women’s uniform was that what they appeared to be wearing were more akin to pantihose – 15 denier, instead of an actual tights (some are of thicker material than others) that are often worn today by women. The top she wears generally covers the buttocks, however it may be longer if desired.

Clothing is meant to provide protection from harsh elements but still allow maximum freedom of movement and comfort. Clothing could also allow a person to feel attractive, even sexy.

The pant suit that women often wear in an office environment is possibly one of the most sexist outfits ever. Apart from often being quite ugly, wearing it plays into the fact that only clothes normally associated with men in power are the ones that women get to wear in order to be taken seriously. Once again, it is men and their preferred attire that dominate and women have to wear that style in order to be accepted as part of the team. Never mind that women are not men – what men think and wear is all that matters.

321. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

@318

“Rome is relatively termperate. Psi 2000 (“Naked Time”) and Sarpeidon (“All Our Yesterdays”) were not.”

I understand and considered all that, but I don’t find it persuasive because I’m a guy who in some years has managed to make it through some cold winters wearing shorts above my boots; as long as I keep my center mass covered, my legs don’t feel the pain.

“In addition, the Roman uniform was in no way standardized.”

Sounds almost like Starfleet! And I like the idea of a Starfleet that has many uniform options. In STID Uhura is apparently wearing a Starfleet issue dive suit! Cool! More individual options, not less, tailored to the situation and the desire of the wearer seems like a good way to go.

Many years ago in here I suggested Starfleet might even have wafer-thin skintight fabrics that are impenetrable, that perhaps instantly harden in locations where foreign objects threaten to abrade or pierce the fabric, in which case Uhura could theoretically wear a piece of body armor that is transparent, giving the illusion that she’s wearing nothing at all!

Regarding the BDU question: Military bureaucrats decide what uniforms soldiers get, how many of them they have, and which occasions to wear what. You do get some choices, and special units may dispense with uniform options altogether depending on the situation.

322. LizardGirl - March 27, 2013

So…my follow-up post is missing….possibly because of the links I added to other trek websites. I will attempt to re-post it later (without links perhaps…).

323. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

320. Keachick – March 27, 2013

Gene Roddenberry is famous for his womanizing and not-so-inhibited sexuality, and I seem to remember that he was pushing the boundaries in some of the clothing designs that Star Trek premiered on TV.

324. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

By the way, I’ve also pointed out that in some episodes of TOS where some crew-women where skirts, you sometimes see another female character walk by in the background wearing pants! So you could say Starfleet gives you options. It’s not a place where everybody wears the same thing at the same time in every situation.

325. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

where = wear

lol

326. The Sinfonian - March 27, 2013

Remember that for The Cage, and for WNMHGB, women wore pants. So, extras in the background were uniformed in whatever leftovers weren’t in use by the principals and guest stars.

So, that’s the only reason you saw women wearing pants in the background.

327. The Sinfonian - March 27, 2013

That is, extras in later episodes of TOS…. (wish there was an edit function!)

328. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

320: “The pant suit that women often wear in an office environment is possibly one of the most sexist outfits ever. Apart from often being quite ugly, wearing it plays into the fact that only clothes normally associated with men in power are the ones that women get to wear in order to be taken seriously. Once again, it is men and their preferred attire that dominate and women have to wear that style in order to be accepted as part of the team. Never mind that women are not men – what men think and wear is all that matters.”

Hey that is a very good point, though I don’t agree that it’s particularly sexy.

Maybe someone might think it’s sexy if it’s a power symbol and they think power is sexy, but I don’t.

But very good point you make there at the end.

329. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

326: “So, that’s the only reason you saw women wearing pants in the background.”

Which in no way prevents it, pragmatic as it may have been to do, from enriching the universe of canon we know and love.

The Great Bird of the Galaxy works in mysterious ways.

330. Disinvited - March 27, 2013

#320. Keachick – March 27, 2013

Good point muted only by the fact that most of the successful clothiers for women are men.

331. Keachick - March 27, 2013

The pant suit (like what Hilary Clinton always wears) are anything but sexy. Perhaps you are confusing the term “sexist” with sexy – don’t necessarily have the same meaning.

Some people do think that (powerful) men in suits look sexy. I don’t. There are very few men who make wearing a suit look sexy.

(Chris Pine may be an exception – see him in his latest modeling assignment – ref. Chris Pine Network)

332. Keachick - March 27, 2013

#330 – The most successful clothiers for both men and women tend to be men. I’m not sure why that is…

333. Curious Cadet - March 27, 2013

@317. dmduncan,
“And I’ve been in physical situations where my clothing has got caught distracting attention I needed to put elsewhere to release myself, and it’s very annoying, and could even have worse consequences, which is why I say there’s no easy formula to determine appropriateness.”

And I agree 100% with this. The problem with your later comment that Starfleet gives you choices, is that Abrams Starfleet only seem to give the women choices of BDUs. As I pointed out TMP was the most realistic portrayal of a futuristic military organization based on what we have today given the range of choices both men and women had for BDUs, albeit still no skirts for men, which would be a welcome option in an enlightened society — I own a kilt and find it wonderfully liberating.

334. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

333: “The problem with your later comment that Starfleet gives you choices, is that Abrams Starfleet only seem to give the women choices of BDUs. As I pointed out TMP was the most realistic portrayal of a futuristic military organization based on what we have today given the range of choices both men and women had for BDUs, albeit still no skirts for men, which would be a welcome option in an enlightened society — I own a kilt and find it wonderfully liberating.”

I don’t mean to suggest that there is no uniform, or shouldn’t be, but that Starfleet does have options to choose from based on TOS.

Hard to say how Abrams is going to rule on it, but I loved the return to TOS’s look. Uhura looked strong and confident in that outfit. I had no problem taking her seriously because of what she was wearing.

Hey, and it would cool to see a Scotty dress uniform that incorporates a kilt.

Let’s add it to Bob’s official Star Trek to-do list! ;-)

335. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

331: “The pant suit (like what Hilary Clinton always wears) are anything but sexy. Perhaps you are confusing the term “sexist” with sexy – don’t necessarily have the same meaning.”

Oh! Thanks. I actually read it as “sexy” when you wrote “sexist.” I misread it.

336. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

Just got back from lunch, so you’ll have to excuse me if this is a bit late…

#321 dmduncan:

I understand and considered all that, but I don’t find it persuasive because I’m a guy who in some years has managed to make it through some cold winters wearing shorts above my boots; as long as I keep my center mass covered, my legs don’t feel the pain.

LOL! And by the way I’m not laughing at you, more at the irony of your statement as my husband and I have been engaging in a war over dominance of the thermostat for 20+ years now with no signs of abetting any time soon (tonight I shall try taping a flag to it with the female gender sign on it and see if that works to declare me victor). ;)

Long story short, you are a guy. We’re talking about women. While its true that both men and women are in possession of an endocrine system, they function a bit differently from one gender to another. I can go into a long, highly detailed explanation into why that is, but I think only we biology nerds would want to read something like that so let me break it down for you: due to many factors, our smaller average body size, that women have a thicker distribution of fat just under the skin, our reproductive functions, and our body’s focus on keeping our internal, core temperature warm – more so then in men, the hypothalamus will shut down blood to to the skin and outer extremities to focus on keeping the core temperature up. Thus, women, in general, feel the cold more than men. ;)

Thus, pants (sometimes pants AND tights, and I say this as a woman who lives in Southern California). ;)

Many years ago in here I suggested Starfleet might even have wafer-thin skintight fabrics that are impenetrable…

The one piece skintight outfits from ST:TMP were sort of how you describe this. So hey, Roddenberry, at least, might have, at one point, had your back on that.

337. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

#320 Keachick:

The pant suit that women often wear in an office environment is possibly one of the most sexist outfits ever.

That is entirely subjective.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Mine, however, disagrees with yours. Completely. Our female predecessors fought long and hard for our right to wear pants. When I wear a suit I’m reminded of the time when women were only accepted in dresses. I’m also rather proud of my state, who actually included the right to wear pants in the “California Fair Employment and Housing Act”.

In addition, I think they are smart and stylish. In fact, I’ll even wear a blazer to functions outside of work, pair it with jeans and whatnot. Practical because it keeps me warm, and also more stylish than say, a sweatshirt.

I close with this:

Search CAL. GOV. CODE § 12947.5 : California Code – Section 12947.5

(a)It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to permit an employee to wear pants on account of the sex of the employee.

338. Keachick - March 27, 2013

We saw Scotty in full dress uniform which included the kilt on TWOK at Spock’s funeral. He also played bagpipes.

339. Curious Cadet - March 27, 2013

@337. Trekkiegal63,
“The one piece skintight outfits from ST:TMP were sort of how you describe this. So hey, Roddenberry, at least, might have, at one point, had your back on that.”

As I recall, there were no skirts in TMP which goes to my earlier point (which is now gone! oh well maybe it will come back) that Roddenberry, when given a choice eschewed skirts in preference for pants. He seemed to have a strong idea that Starfleet should wear unisex pants. The skirts seem to be a choice made by NBC executives for Roddenberry and not a personal choice, regardless of how he preferred his women to dress off camera.

340. Keachick - March 27, 2013

#337 – I am not sure you get what I mean here. Unfortunately, it would not be the first time…

Pants are practical. I wear them a lot of the time myself. However, when I see women wear suits, right down to even the tie, then I seriously have to wonder what is really going on here at times…

341. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

#339 Curious Cadet:

Ah, so we have NBC to blame.

NBC *shakes first*

As I recall, there were no skirts in TMP which goes to my earlier point (which is now gone! oh well maybe it will come back) that Roddenberry, when given a choice eschewed skirts in preference for pants.

And what a wonderful point it was. Good for Roddenberry in this regard!

He seemed to have a strong idea that Starfleet should wear unisex pants.

… and this is where he loses me. While the Enterprise looked fabulous in TMP (all hour long panning body shots we got of it… kidding, kidding… sort of) the uniforms? Not as such. Though I admit this is a subjective opinion. ;)

I may be alone in this, but I liked the Khan-era uniforms.

342. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

#340 Keachick:

Hardly any female wears a tie with their suit. At least not in my office. I usually pair my suits with a silk or satin blouse, or, depending on the weather and/or if the IT guys have control of the thermostat, a camisole.

If the point that you’re trying to convey that you claim I miss is that women try to dress like men when they wear suits? (Genuine question there, I’m not trying to be combative with you, I want to know if that is what you were trying to say) then not as such, no. Female suits are tailored completely different, and, as stated, worn differently. My suits, for example, have a bit more of a defined waist to the blazer then you’d find in my husband’s.

343. Curious Cadet - March 27, 2013

@341 Trekkiegal63,

TMP were shockingly different, and perhaps that’s what I reacted most strongly too. The omission of the red shirt was particularly distressing as Scotty was my favorite character. Otherwise the uniforms were typical of the scifi genre of the period which I loved, specifically Space 1999.

I liked the Khan-era uniforms best myself. And they had optional skirts!

And while there were skirts in the TNG pilot, even the men got to wear them (gotta love memory alpha for documenting this so thoroughly). Troi was the only principal actor who wore a skirt with short sleeves, but she quickly moved toward pants herself. Seeing her and the extras in skirts, as well as men wearing the skirts, one gets the feeling this was the deal Roddenberry struck with the studio — “you want Troi to wear a skirt, fine then the men must be able to wear them as well”. Seems like when the men stopped wearing them so did everybody else. There were even skirt/pant combinations seen on extras and most notably Dr. Pulaski. While the dress uniforms themselves looked like dresses on everyone. Aside from the skin tight fit, the uniforms were by and large conservatively unisex.

The one notable aspect of the TNG sleeveless miniskirt dress is that the rank appeared on the collar. So removing the sleeves was never an issue. Obviously Abrams already had a precedent for representing rank on such a uniform, but chose to ignore it for some reason. I can think of no reason not to put rank on her collar as is done in present day Navy uniforms, which are commonly mixed with other uniforms which display rank on epaulets and sleeves. Other than they just didn’t care.

344. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

343 Curious Cadet:

And while there were skirts in the TNG pilot, even the men got to wear them (gotta love memory alpha for documenting this so thoroughly).

This fact puts a huge smile on my face whenever I think on it. Say what you will about Roddenberry’s personal life, the man was rather fantastic at making a statement.

Seeing her and the extras in skirts, as well as men wearing the skirts, one gets the feeling this was the deal Roddenberry struck with the studio — “you want Troi to wear a skirt, fine then the men must be able to wear them as well”. Seems like when the men stopped wearing them so did everybody else.

My fondest wish is that somehow, someway, someday, this gets corroborated. Because that would be, to quote my daughter, awesome. ;)

Obviously Abrams already had a precedent for representing rank on such a uniform, but chose to ignore it for some reason. I can think of no reason not to put rank on her collar as is done in present day Navy uniforms

…this actually tickled my memory about something, so I googled it to confirm, and yup, one of Kirk’s two different styles of green wrap shirts had the rank on the collar (let’s see if the site will let me post this) http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/article/837/837864/capt-kirk_chair_1196285758.jpg

So yes, you are right. There is absolutely no good reason why those rank stripes should have been left off. :(

345. Keachick - March 27, 2013

I actually said nearly two years ago that rank could be put on the neckline of the short sleeve women’s dress/skirt. There is no reason why the same could not apply to a man’s uniform.

trekkiegal: I realize that the pant suit worn by women would be tailored differently to men’s suits. I can’t buy men’s pants anymore than my sons can buy women’s pants. Certain anatomical differences have to be tailored for.

Curiously, I do not believe my sister has a pant suit in her closet, even though she works in an industry, where she is often seeing clients in her office and sometimes visiting them in their offices. No doubt there are also meetings that she attends. She wears pants, black leggings, dresses and skirts of varying lengths and styles, shirts, tops and scarves, of varying fabrics. She looks well dressed, stylish and very feminine. She has been sent for training or to troubleshoot problems that clients have in Sydney and Melbourne.

I am sorry but the pant suit as worn by Hilary Clinton and others – when wasn’t Boston Legal’s Shirley Schmidt wearing one of those? – is, to me, a sexist outfit.

Admittedly, the only women I can recall wearing a suit (tailored for a female) and tie have been Ellen DeGeneres and k.d.laing, but I am sure there have been others.

346. Keachick - March 27, 2013

So what’s the story here, JJ Abrams, Bob Orci and the rest of the Supreme Court? Why aren’t the women’s uniforms, whether they be a super short skirt with sleeveless top or not, seen to have rank stripes commensurate with that particular Starfleet’s women’s qualifications and experience?

I believe I can safely say here, irrespective of our varying views on style of uniform worn, WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO HAVE AN ANSWER.

You are being called out here – for real.

347. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

#345 Keachick:

I am sorry but the pant suit as worn by Hilary Clinton and others – when wasn’t Boston Legal’s Shirley Schmidt wearing one of those? – is, to me, a sexist outfit.

Well, like I said, this is subjective. Different women have different tastes in suits. I like mine with a defined waist, no shoulder pads, etc. Another personal knitpick is that I want my pants somewhat longish. They have to cover the ankle. Different strokes for different folks. However, I wouldn’t call women wearing a suit sexist, as there is a deep and troubling history surrounding the female right to do just that. We fought for that right (well, not us personally, those brave souls who came before us). California had to make a law about it!

However, what you can accuse Hillary Clinton of is bad fashion. ;)

Curiously, I do not believe my sister has a pant suit in her closet, even though she works in an industry, where she is often seeing clients in her office and sometimes visiting them in their offices.

Regional. Different regions have different dresscode standards. For example, in parts of the East Coast women still wear nylon stalkings quite regularly. You don’t really see those here too much anymore, though occasionally you might. It’s just as standard as it was before. Having attended business funtions in both regions of the US, east and west, I’ve come to the personal conclusion that the East Coast is still a little more formal than we are here in California. And perhaps, by extention, California is more formal than New Zealand, depending, of course, on the line of business and the position held.

348. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

*It’s just NOT as standard as it was before. Need more caffeine apparently.

349. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

#346 Keachick:

So what’s the story here, JJ Abrams, Bob Orci and the rest of the Supreme Court? Why aren’t the women’s uniforms, whether they be a super short skirt with sleeveless top or not, seen to have rank stripes commensurate with that particular Starfleet’s women’s qualifications and experience?

For once we are in complete accord. I want to know the answer to this as well.

350. Red Dead Ryan - March 27, 2013

Keachick, your statements about Hillary Clinton come off as blatantly sexist.

Mrs. Clinton has had to endure gross amounts of sexism as well as her husband’s infidelity over the years.

She, like many other women, probably feel the only way to be taken seriously is by wearing the female equivalent of what her male counterparts wear: a suit. I’m sure she’d like to wear a skirt, but seeing how women in skirts are treated in politics (as well as the military, police department, offices, etc.) she (and other women) probably don’t want to have to endure derogatory comments about her anatomy or someone sneaking a mobile device between her legs to photograph her private parts.

Starfleet is a military organization, and skirts should not be allowed. Everyone, male, female, transgendered (whatever the case may be) should be wearing the exact same clothing. And the proper way to address a superior officer would be with a “sir” for both men and women. No ma’ams. This policy would enforce discipline and the maintenance of order that should be occurring in today’s militaries around the world.

351. Red Dead Ryan - March 27, 2013

A suit is a symbol of power, and there are many women who feel that they should be allowed to share in that power. Hence the “pant-suit”.

Yeah, they might not be glamorous, but I think that is the point. Women are expected to look hot and sexy, and the pant-suit is the chance for females to get away from that.

End of story. Case closed.

352. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

#351 Red Dead Ryan:

I want to give you a hug for this post. Consider yourself hugged.

353. Aurore - March 27, 2013

309. dmduncan – March 27, 2013
304. Aurore – March 26, 2013

“Sure, shove me in a time capsule and make me read what I wrote years ago. ;-)”

_______

I just pushed you gently.

I’ll reserve the shoving for the next thread about the Spock and Uhura romance…or any thread about the new Enterprise design….

:))

(Evil laughter)

“Wow. Feels weird. Like agreeing with another person who also happens to be yourself!”

So true.

I still agree with everything you said then, by the way.

Incidentally, I still agree with myself ; especially with what I wrote @151,167 & 169 on the thread I linked to, earlier.

:)

(@321)
“And I like the idea of a Starfleet that has many uniform options. In STID Uhura is apparently wearing a Starfleet issue dive suit! Cool!”

Cool. Indeed.

I remember a photo of Uhura apparently confronting John Harrison, on a platform, in the red mini skirt ( which I am happy to see back).

My guess, and, it is only a guess, is that, she might have found herself in a “John McClane must run on broken glass with no shoes on” situation.

She was minding her own business wearing the red mini skirt in a location where it was perfectly appropriate.

When, all of a sudden, Mr. One-Man Weapon of Mass Destruction decided to do bad guy stuff.

Along with spock, she had no other choice but to go after him. With no delay.

It was an emergency ; there was little to no time to change clothes.

…After all, I note that she is not wearing the red mini on Kronos .

http://trekmovie.com/2013/03/24/star-trek-app-delivers-interesting-new-into-darkness-image/

In my opinion, the mission on Kronos is not improvised.

On the other hand, what happens on the platform, might be…

http://trekmovie.com/2012/02/24/more-photos-from-star-trek-set-imax-camera-spotted/

354. Red Dead Ryan - March 27, 2013

#352.

Thank you!

:-)

355. Aurore - March 27, 2013

@ Roberto Orci

“176. Keachick (rose pinenut) – August 8, 2011
#174 Not having any rank insignia has nothing to do with wearing short dresses with no sleeves. This was an oversight by the producers, one which needs to be corrected by the time the sequel get released.

Are you getting this, Bob Orci?…”

http://trekmovie.com/2011/08/03/zachary-quinto-thinks-spock-should-be-rebuilding-the-vulcan-race/
_____

At the time, I agreed with Rosemary.

I still do.

So should you be willing to answer the question she asked earlier on this thread…I would say…thank you for taking the time (to do so), sir!

356. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

336. Trekkiegal63 – March 27, 2013

I know what you are talking about regarding women feeling the cold more than men, so I’m glad there is a good biological basis for it and I’m not concocting sexist opinions—and yet you beautiful creatures still wear skirts in the winter time!

I see it with my own eyes!

357. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

353: “…After all, I note that she is not wearing the red mini on Kronos .”

Hey it looks to me like they are all wearing civilian clothes on Kronos.

They are undercover, so to speak, but I like your funny Uhura scenario!

And what do you know? I still agree with me, and you too it seems!

358. Keachick - March 27, 2013

I have nothing against Hilary Clinton and I agree that she has had to put with so much crap that it is not even funny. Not that it ever was funny. I admire her, especially when everybody was calling her out because she did not file for divorce. The marriage belongs to her and Bill Clinton and no one else had any right to berate her for how she handled her husband’s infidelity. It was none of their business.

It is just that I don’t see women dressed that way as being powerful in their own right. They just seem to be playing the same games that men play…I know that it is probably not the case, but as we are talking about appearances giving certain impressions (whether valid or not) here, which is what this discussion is essentially about, that’s how it appears to me.

Aurore – oh my. I forgot I even wrote that. I may have written, in a half-joking way (I can be outlandish at times), that, even if the Enterprise crew’s normal ship’s uniform was their birthday suits, they could still wear the Starfleet symbol and individual rank in the form of a bracelet or necklace.

I am sure that the art of tattooing might have advanced to the point where rank could be “tattooed” into the forearm of any personnel, so that even if they wore short sleeves, anyone would be able to see their designation. If a person’s status was changed, then the tattoo could be easily removed (laser?…) and the new one placed on the skin. I only just thought of this now…

There you go, Supreme Court, you have been given so many options…

359. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

339. Curious Cadet – March 27, 2013

Actually, I can now confirm that is not true. During TOS Gene Roddenberry was actively involved in pushing the network’s boundaries by personally “improving” Theiss’ costumes. “Improving” meant removing material and showing more of the woman, emphasizing her figure, and he would do this before approving the final costumes.

And he had a very “hands on” approach regarding the women and their costumes. It was no secret how he enriched his private life with women from his professional life, and vice versa, so how he lived and how Star Trek came out looking on TV is all connected.

Despite that, the creative crew had inspired ideas that do not look dated.

360. Red Dead Ryan - March 27, 2013

As long as men see women as sex objects, then there will be a need for pant-suits for women who have been raped by the eyes of men.

361. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

353. Aurore – March 27, 2013

I’ll reserve the shoving for the next thread about the Spock and Uhura romance…or any thread about the new Enterprise design….

***

Aah yes.

The Spock and Uhura relation ship,
And JJ’s 1701 space ship.

May the first crash and burn like the second!

;-)

362. dmduncan - March 27, 2013

360. Red Dead Ryan – March 27, 2013

Man, you are so OBVIOUSLY trying to get a second hug. ;-)

363. Keachick - March 27, 2013

#360 – You have no idea why women might wear pant suits. Besides, if a man has notions of “eye rape”, I doubt that it would make much difference what the woman is wearing. Anything can be removed – with one’s eyes.

364. Red Dead Ryan - March 27, 2013

Damn, a couple of my follow-up posts have been deleted for some reason.

#363.

That may be so, but it happens a lot more when women wear mini-skirts. More skin is exposed, and some men get easily lustful. A lot of women would wear mini-skirts more often, but are justifiably afraid of some guy eying them in a creepy, psychopathic manner.

365. Red Dead Ryan - March 27, 2013

#362.

Yeah, I do like hugs! I think I could have used a few more when I was a kid.

Anyway, back when I was in my teens/early twenties, I was a bit of an ass. I didn’t respect women enough. I was a misogynist. No, I didn’t physically harm anybody, but I said some sexually derogatory comments towards a number of women. I ended up getting (rightfully) fired from my job.

The last ten years I have been mindful of my own behavior, and done my best to not repeat the mistakes that I got punished for.

I don’t mean to be a prude, or to be preachful, its just that I want to better myself. Its a struggle, and a work in progress.

366. Trekkiegal63 - March 27, 2013

#356 dmduncun:

I know what you are talking about regarding women feeling the cold more than men, so I’m glad there is a good biological basis for it and I’m not concocting sexist opinions.

A good thing to be concerned about. Kudos to you for stopping to consider. But alas, in this instance, entirely biological.

and yet you beautiful creatures still wear skirts in the winter time!

Can’t argue with you there. My own kid does it. And I think she, and her friends that do likewise, are CRAZY. But then I’m all of 5’4″ (and a half! that half is important!) and slender, so I’m not exactly built for cold on a good day. In fact, the only time I’m warm and it’s not August, is after my run. Thus I have a strict rule, I only wear shorts/skirts/dresses when its 75 degrees Fahrenheit outside or higher. And my biology loves me for it. ;)

But, on a serious note, essentially my thought on clothing is this. Feminism is not a movement dictating to people what they should wear. It’s about women having a choices and options available to them, just like anyone else, equally. HOWEVER, having said that, I also have a long history as a business professional. I believe that there are certain types of clothing that are appropriate for different environments and social environments, for both men and women, equally. I wouldn’t wear flip-flops to the office for example, and I don’t think men should either.

When you start a new job, or sign up for the military you are doing it voluntarily, of your own freewill. However, when you take that job, or sign the UCMJ to join the military, you are agreeing to uphold their standard of conduct, which usually includes a dresscode.

I feel that pants are more suitable for the away mission environments encountered on Trek, for both genders. I also feel that the original TOS uniforms for ladies were sexist, because a) sexism was rampart in the times, and b) because sexism was rampart in the times (and did I mention c) sexism was rampart during that time?).

In addition, as I explained to Keachick, the right to wear pants is tied up with the equal rights movement for women. It was fought for, it wasn’t given, and I think a lot of people today forget that or take it for granted. Some wildly sexist slogans came out of it, in fact. I mean, you’ve probably heard, at least once “wonder who wears the pants in that family”, yes? It’s a case in point.

As Red Dead Ryan has pointed out, and rightly so, pants are now symbolic. It says we, too, can be scientists, doctors, lawyers, politicians, engineers and officers – professions that used to be considered male dominant, and we can do it with equal fervor. We are more than wives/girlfriends/sisters/mothers. Pants therefore became not so much about who should wear them, but about taking control (of one’s own life and options). Of making a statement on perceptions, and how old perceptions needed to be shed.

It’s about taking charge of our own destiny.

… and, they are warm and practical (and jeans wonderful and the single greatest invention bar the Margarita and the laptop, or better, both together). ;)

367. dmduncan - March 28, 2013

365. Red Dead Ryan – March 27, 2013

Then you deserve commendations. Good for you, RDR.

368. LizardGirl - March 28, 2013

So I haven’t read anything since my last post. I will attempt to repost an earlier comment that was deleated (because I distinctly remember checking to make sure it posted, which it did). Some things may have already been said in my absence. I will do my best to read and understand previous posts. I will make another post with the links. If that disappears, then I’ll know why the following was removed.

ORIGINALLY POSTED MARCH 26TH, 10PM MT TIME, USA

I’d personally like to see something like this for the new female uniforms with a long red, blue, yellow sleeve:

(LINK 1)

And yeah, where does rank come into all of this? Well…

Look at the pictures of the Original Series male uniform (top part) and the female uniform (top part). There really isn’t a visible difference in rank, except for the sleeves.

Male:
(LINK 2)

Female:
(LINK 3)

Chekov:
(LINK 4

The rank can go on the sleeves like the orginal series did. I’m not sure, but wasn’t the rank on the collar introduced with the original cast movies and adopted by TNG? This time period is BEFORE that. They could do that I suppose. But again, they could just lengthen the sleeves of the females and put the gold bars there.

**********
Also, rank seemed to be used more, I don’t know, liberally? If you graduated from the Academy, whether in Command, Engineering, or Science, you were considered a lieutenant, a military label (despite the Federation not being a military force).

So yeah the terms are used (Captain, Admiral, Lieutenant, etc.) and reasonable obedience was given because of it. But honestly, if we didn’t know Kirk was THE Captain of the Enterprise….he’d pretty much blend in with everyone else wearing command gold. And a lot of the females of TOS had gold bars on their sleeves like the men did. One of them could’ve deceptively passed as the Captain of a ship. ;)

369. Trekkiegal63 - March 28, 2013

Then you deserve commendations. Good for you, RDR.

I agree. Good job! And yes, you get a second hug! Consider yourself hugged (again)!

370. dmduncan - March 28, 2013

366: “I feel that pants are more suitable for the away mission environments encountered on Trek, for both genders. I also feel that the original TOS uniforms for ladies were sexist, because a) sexism was rampart in the times, and b) because sexism was rampart in the times (and did I mention c) sexism was rampart during that time?). ”

I’m a different type of guy. I mean I don’t judge a woman’s character or ability by whether she chooses to wear a skirt or pants, and the seriousness with which I take her is not bound up in her choice of what to wear. Basically that’s because I respect women. So regardless of what was going on at the time those original uniforms were designed, and again in 2009 when Zoe Saldana wore the same outfit, I see a strong professional competent woman up there on the screen when I see Uhura.

What I was saying before was that our ideas of appropriateness, while legitimate, are more an expression of the particular conventions of a given time rather than practicality, so that when you imagine a future world like we see in Star Trek, you can imagine it far removed from the historical development of pants suits, where styles then reflect a respectable option rather than entrenched sexism.

Same look, different cause.

A woman doesn’t have to wear a suit to make me take her seriously, and I see no reason why in the future, more “enlightened,” world of Star Trek more men couldn’t have my perspective, truly freeing women to wear what they want.

But even with pants suits in the here and now women make choices that show how good their…genes are.

“Life finds a way!”

Hehehe!

371. LizardGirl - March 28, 2013

Finished reading the posts. And it does look like a few of my points match up with what’s already been said.

I understand what you’re saying Trekkiegal63 and Curious Cadet:

Wearing a miniskirt/ dress in certain environments can make one more–or seem more vulnerable than the male counterpart wearing pants. In cold weather or strenuous activity pants are a logical choice (agreed!). Also, pants represent power in male dominated professions (talking about Western societies). So a woman wearing pants in a professional enviroment may feel more accepted as an equal than a woman wearing a skirt.

I agree with most of these points. My opinion is that the female uniforms in ST09 and STID have nothing to do with that. They are purely fanciful and, with a smidge of creative license, a slight copy of the template set in TOS. The uniforms aren’t meant to be practical. Yet if JJ decided to scrap the original female uniform completely where would that leave fans (including female fans)? They’d probably be very angry. Heck it doesn’t take much.

I honestly think a female officer could be wearing a chicken suit and she’d still be just as effective with a phaser and combat training as the next person. John Harrison may find that out first hand with Uhura, if the leaked pictures are anything to go by.

********
I was unaware of the history of women not being able to wear pants. I wear jeans all the time and I do wear dress slacks to work. But I also like to wear appropriate dresses and skirts to work as well. I enjoy being feminine and don’t want to feel like I owe it to the female gender to shun skirts or dresses ’cause the general consensus is that they’re now less “professional”. That simply isn’t true. There are tasteful business attire in the form of dress and skirt. There are females, from the very young to the very old who just enjoy wearing dresses and skirts. Doesn’t make them mentally weaker.

An interesting tidbit: there seems to be a resurgence in 50’s and 60’s feminine style/culture. But it seems to now be viewed as a symbol of power to wear these classic styles which mainly include dresses and skirts (secretary dress, poodle skirt, etc). I would post a picture link example of this growing subculture, but I’m afraid my post will get deleted!

372. Curious Cadet - March 28, 2013

@359. dmduncan,
“Actually, I can now confirm that is not true. During TOS Gene Roddenberry was actively involved in pushing the network’s boundaries by personally “improving” Theiss’ costumes.”

I’m actually well aware of this. From Whitfield’s the Making of Star Trek, I think. But as I recall, this was also specifically in regard to the guest actress costumes, not the Starfleet uniforms. Roddenberry wanted a female number one in pants. It’s hard for me to believe a military man who created the concept of Number One would voluntarily put female service members in mini skirts and send them out into the field. And I think his subsequent costume choices for TMP and TNG demonstrate his thinking in this regard. In 1977 he could have had the women wearing g-strings, but I don’t think that’s how he saw the crew.

373. dmduncan - March 28, 2013

It’s from Solow/Justman. Roddenberry approved the uniforms and it was he who was pushing the censors. He may have had a change of mind by TMP, though the production art and test shots from the Phase II series would argue against this since they reproduced the TOS look almost exactly. I seem to remember it was actually Robert Wise who thought the colorful old uniforms of the past would not look good on a big screen, a view which I think JJ has disproved.

It was after they scrapped Phase II and decided to pursue a theatrical release with Robert Wise on board that the uniforms changed, all of which happened in the same time period.

374. dmduncan - March 28, 2013

Hahaha! Here you all go. Or to quote RDR:

CASE CLOSED.

http://s183.photobucket.com/user/TrueX-Ray/media/TNG%20Caption%20This/200NerysMyk.jpg.html

375. dmduncan - March 28, 2013

That is just funny looking.

376. Red Dead Ryan - March 28, 2013

Thanks, guys!

#374.

Actually, the credit should go to MJ. He was the first to use that phrase on this site. Or at least he popularized it! ;-)

377. Trekkiegal63 - March 28, 2013

#370 dmduncun:

I’m a different type of guy. I mean I don’t judge a woman’s character or ability by whether she chooses to wear a skirt or pants, and the seriousness with which I take her is not bound up in her choice of what to wear. Basically that’s because I respect women. So regardless of what was going on at the time those original uniforms were designed, and again in 2009 when Zoe Saldana wore the same outfit, I see a strong professional competent woman up there on the screen when I see Uhura.

That is excellent. Wonderful, even. Oh if only more gentlemen (Curious Cadet and Red Dead Ryan, as well as some others on this site, Phil and Logical Leopard, I’m not forgetting you, either, being stellar examples of more enlightened, forward thinking themselves, thus exceptions to the sentence I’m about to finish) shared in your wisdom.

And I hope your vision of the future is exactly how it happens, i.e. women being seen as equals and critical thinking human beings automatically upon sight whether they’re clothed in paper bags or pant suits (given, of course, the weather and terrain conditions of what ever planet they’re landing on). It’s the kind of future I’d like for my daughter.

That said, although I’m a huge fan of TOS, I’m also a woman who was (partially) raised in the sixties, thus I can’t turn off the knowledge of the how and why those costumes were conceived and it does bug me. Rather a lot, to be honest.

However, having admitted that I like your idealism for the future, I’ll keep it in the back of my mind, where hope lives, whenever I watch “What Little Girls are Made of” and ponder the practicality of Nurse Chapel navigating a rocky cavern with phallic shaped stalactites and stalagmites in the equivalent of a long sleeved t-shirt and hot pants (in regard to said stalactites and stalagmites… Roddenberry got so much pass the censors, omg).

378. Trekkiegal63 - March 28, 2013

*past not pass – it’s late, I’m tired. I noticed a missing word or two in there, too *sigh*. Definitely time for bed.

379. Trekkiegal63 - March 28, 2013

#371 LizardGirl:

There are tasteful business attire in the form of dress and skirt.

Oh, I’m not claiming there aren’t. I own plenty of dresses myself, some of them bought specifically because they’re business appropriate.

But I work behind a desk. The only elements I face is the air conditioner breaking down (which happened last summer and sucked). Were I to land on say Psi 2000? I’d want thermals, under a wetsuit, under sweats, under jeans and a sweater, under insulated snow overalls, and topped off with a parka, and then, over all of that, the biosuit. Oh, and five layers of socks. ;)

But when it comes to choices, I agree with you. Women have them and that is wonderful. I wouldn’t take that away, even if I could. Our ancestors fought for that! That said, most companies do have a dresscode. Thus when you pursue a job of your own freewill, expect a dresscode to come attached. That’s just life. For both genders.

I was unaware of the history of women not being able to wear pants.

Oh yes. Unfortunate, but true. If you have a minute and are interested, check out this, here, for a little history on the subject of pants in relation to women’s rights:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tove-hermanson/women-pants-politics_b_541555.html

380. Disinvited - March 28, 2013

It’s probably not too late to dig into my college anthropology memory banks and remind all that almost every article of clothing now associated in modern times with women, were originally designed for, and worn by men in power of the past. If I recall correctly at first in some cultures clothing was considered too valuable and important to be wasted on the “lesser” classes, that is some forbade women to be clothed just as some now forbid them to have any skin exposed.

So what passes for “sexy” clothing on women (or men) today is largely dependent on fad and whim.

381. Aurore - March 28, 2013

“…oh my. I forgot I even wrote that. I may have written, in a half-joking way (I can be outlandish at times), that, even if the Enterprise crew’s normal ship’s uniform was their birthday suits, they could still wear the Starfleet symbol and individual rank in the form of a bracelet or necklace.

I am sure that the art of tattooing might have advanced to the point where rank could be “tattooed” into the forearm of any personnel, so that even if they wore short sleeves, anyone would be able to see their designation. If a person’s status was changed, then the tattoo could be easily removed (laser?…) and the new one placed on the skin. I only just thought of this now…”

___________

Rosemary,

Anything is possible. This could happen, I guess.

However, I still prefer the suggestion you made a couple of years ago.

In the upcoming sequel, you were expecting to see Lieutenant Nyota Uhura wearing a uniform with relevant insignia and rank pinned or sewn into the upper part of the garment around the neck line, the shoulders or arms.

At the time, I wondered whether the people involved in the making of the sequel would consider such options, and, by that I mean that I wondered if they would, even without being aware of any online debates on the uniform question.

I was curious to see if there would be any change to Uhura’s uniform…

When I first discovered The Original Series years ago, for a very long time, I personally used to look at the uniforms without really seeing them.

For instance, I knew Kirk was in charge essentially because he acted as a leader….and people referred to him as “Captain”.

However, now that I have paid attention to the fact that there is a difference (regarding rank and insignia), between Uhura’s uniform in the original timeline and what she wears now, I’ll probably think of it when I watch the sequel. Which I did not do in 2009 ; the online debates drew my attention to that topic, in a manner of speaking.

…But, I am so shallow that I will certainly be distracted by my propensity to objectify Benedict Cumberbatch…. :

“…[My costumes] look great. Some of them were (no pun intended) cumbersome and heavy, but some were very snug; you can almost see what religion I am…”

http://trekmovie.com/2013/03/08/abrams-contrasts-nero-with-harrison-cumberbatch-talks-great-discovery-in-into-darkness/

382. Curious Cadet - March 28, 2013

@373. dmduncan,
“It’s from Solow/Justman. Roddenberry approved the uniforms and it was he who was pushing the censors.”

Interesting, I may have actually never read that. I do recall the comment Wise made about the colors, but that seems to be a different school of filmmaking. He thought he was making 2001. Even Space 1999 went with a fairly monochromatic palette the first season. The second season it was brightly colored jackets everywhere. Of course that has nothing to do with skirts. Not sure why Wise would have eschewed skirts in particular, especially when the outfits were so skin tight as to be quite revealing, and there were so many other options for tops.

I would still maintain it was NBC that first pressed Rodenberry to put women in skirts which is why the change was even made. Once down the rabbit hole Roddenberry would have been free to push the envelope, though the original female uniforms were hardly inappropriate and never made more risqué (until Mirror Mirror gave them the opportunity to have some fun) unlike the guest stars. Even when Freiberger took over and they had the opportunity when all of the uniforms were created from scratch. I could be wrong about all of this but I think his military background obligated him to dress his officers with a sense of decorum. The “sin” with TOS female uniforms is that there was no option for pants on women. I think the only TOS female crew in the regular series ever to appear in pants was Charlie X, where he turns a young woman into an old woman. The prevailing theory is nobody wanted to see an old woman in a short skirt.

Just like the animated series, I would have expected Phase II to consider the iconic look that was making it possible in the first place (I’ll have to go back and look at those). Afterall, despite the command uniforms actually being green, rather than confuse the issue they went with the colors the fans had come to recognize. And Paramount was heavily involved and their voice cannot be discounted in the decision making. It was the studio after all that scrapped the series in favor of a movie in the first place.

And Abrams too is going back to that iconic look that made the original famous. We can give him credit for giving women the option at least to wear sleeves and pants, a precedent set in TNG. But the sleeveless look with no rank and sending them out into the field that way strikes me as taking liberties with the look “approved” by Roddenberry for TOS (and TNG for that matter). By the way, is it just me, or does Zoe look a little like she’s wearing a potato sack in her mini-dress?

As for your comments @374 & 375, I actually think that guy pulls off the skirt uniform. It actually looks pretty comfortable, and not very different from the way guys look in kilts. The one-piece design is what is kind of odd, but practical. And Roddenberry surey approved that as well. Would he have done this in 1966 had NBC allowed it? Who knows. But as a result of see discussions I’d love to learn more about the decision making process for the uniforms all the way around …

383. Curious Cadet - March 28, 2013

@378. Trekkiegal63,
“I hope your vision of the future is exactly how it happens, i.e. women being seen as equals and critical thinking human beings automatically upon sight whether they’re clothed in paper bags or pant suits … That said, although I’m a huge fan of TOS, I’m also a woman who was (partially) raised in the sixties, thus I can’t turn off the knowledge of the how and why those costumes were conceived and it does bug me. Rather a lot, to be honest.”

I’m with dmduncan here. But we are atypical men per my experience in this regard. Nothing makes my teeth hurt more than sitting with a group of guys as an attractive woman walks by and experiencing them leer at her and the conversation devolve into inappropriate comments about her body. I tend to make judgements, but at least suspend my verdict until I vet a person directly, and more importantly keep my opinions to myself until they are discounted or validated.

More importantly, I recognize that while I can accept a person for who they might be, rather than who they appear to be, most don’t. This is why advertising and marketing are so effective on the average person. Certainly the battle of perspective you have been engaged in here is proof of that.

But I would say this about those costumes. While the sixties brought about a social revolution which enabled men to objectify women more completely than ever in the past, it also enabled women more freedom to express themselves than ever before. Women had finally won the battle to wear as little clothing as men in public (mostly), a battle which women around the world still fight (most notably in Islamic countries). So it was both exploitation and liberation at the same time. It’s hard to look at TV from that period and point a finger solely at the men. One look at 50s television had women in full length dresses, and rarely pants. Did they even go swimming?

Today is something different. There is a veneer of equality that is often not very deep. And costuming decisions is one way this is revealed in modern film. A woman in a bikini surround by clothed men who are all otherwise performing the same job sends a particular message, which has nothing to do with liberation anymore. But seeing Uhura perform as competently and intelligently as her male counterparts, despite wearing fewer clothes is actually a good thing. It’s sort of anti-objectification training. The lack of rank still bugs me, but thats something most likely wont notice when presented with here prformance. Of course there’s also the way Carol Marcus is presented in the trailers and then there’s the cat-women. So at the moment, the good sort of outweighs the bad. Hopefully the balance will be redressed in the film itself.

384. Trekkiegal63 - March 28, 2013

#383 Curious Cadet:

I’m with dmduncan here. But we are atypical men per my experience in this regard. Nothing makes my teeth hurt more than sitting with a group of guys as an attractive woman walks by and experiencing them leer at her and the conversation devolve into inappropriate comments about her body.

You (and dmduncan and Phil and Red Dead Ryan) are good guys. The lot of you make me proud to be a Trekkie because you incorporate the ideology I’ve always associated with Star Trek: respect for variation, an open mind and the ability to see people first and gender and/or appearance second. As I told dmduncan, if only more followed your example. Though, I don’t mean to make a hasty generalization there. I know plenty of men who are also wonderful in that regard.

Today is something different. There is a veneer of equality that is often not very deep. And costuming decisions is one way this is revealed in modern film. A woman in a bikini surround by clothed men who are all otherwise performing the same job sends a particular message, which has nothing to do with liberation anymore.

I agree with that. Yes. This, exactly.

So at the moment, the good sort of outweighs the bad. Hopefully the balance will be redressed in the film itself.

And this is where you sort of lose me. I agree that Uhura being fabulous in her job is wonderful, and I thank the writers for that profusely. But I also feel that portraying one women as exceptional doesn’t give them leeway to place the others in sexist stereotypes. The way I see it is that Starfleet Academy is for the best of the best, the brightest minds, the ‘genuis level repeat offenders’ – the equivelant of our West Point, where only 9% of applicants are accepted and they all carry a 4.0 grade point average. Therefore, I feel that presenting one of the female characters in the trailers as either in her underwear or screaming doesn’t give her the credit she deserves for being among the brightest, nor does it say much for the Academy, itself. And I’m trying to convey this as it would appear to the perspective of an outside viewer, one who isn’t aware of who Carol Marcus is. Obviously we Trekkies already know she’s brilliant because of the Wrath of Khan.

However, my beef in regards to Carol is with the marketing of the movie, not in regards to the movie itself, which I haven’t seen (yet). If Carol lives up to her TOS counterpart I will be jumping for joy and praising the writers for giving us not one, but two competant, professional women (if the two ladies manage to pass the Bechdel test while they are at it, all the better, and I will be sending Orci fan mail).

I just wish that they haven’t used the clips of her we’ve seen so far as selling pieces for the movie. It’s degrading to female scientists everywhere (which I happen to be). And I want the female uniforms to be practical to the position held, and not different because of physical attributes, and indicate rank because damnit, they had to go through the Academy, too, they freakin’ earned it! (just like anyone else).

So yeah, soap box there, sorry, I know I’m preaching to the choir, just you know, these are my thoughts on the matter. ;)

385. Red Dead Ryan - March 28, 2013

Uhura (and the other female crew members) should wear pants while on duty. Just like the male officers.

However, while off duty, such as in her quarters or in the mess hall, Uhura can wear her skirt all she wants. Fine by me.

It should be based on the circumstances.

And oh yeah, if Scotty wants to drink his scotch while in his kilt, then by all means! :-)

386. Curious Cadet - March 28, 2013

@384. Trekkiegal63″,
“And this is where you sort of lose me.” (Re: 383 Curious Cadet: So at the moment, the good sort of outweighs the bad. Hopefully the balance will be redressed in the film itself.)

I’m not surprised I lost you, I said it backwards — how about: at the moment the bad outweighs the good …

Sorry to make you restate yourself, but it probably never hurts to make your point again around here. As I’ve said before, it’s not a formula; one intellectual female does not entitle them to two half-naked anonymous girls.

@385. Red Dead Ryan,

Not sure I agree there about being on duty. Again for me it’s about everyone being treated the same. There’s no reason a bridge officer can’t wear a skirt at what is basically a desk job. They wear them in our current military. But as far as the movie is concerned, give the guys some more casual options as well to balance the women wearing skirts. More to your point, it should be based on circumstances.

387. Keachick - March 28, 2013

Aurore – my comments about the need to show the rank of any Starfleet personnel was what I was trying to emphasize. Hence I made a (facetious) remark about the person’s birthday suit being the standard Starfleet uniform and even then a way would be found to have that person’s rank, status easily seen, eg as a bracelets, necklace, a form of tattoo on the forearm.

In other words, the Supreme Court has absolutely NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER not to have any Starfleet member capable of being identified as to rank, no matter how little nor how much a person wore.

Are you getting this, Bob Orci and the Supreme Court? I do hope so. You have five weeks to correct any oversights here. Please do so!

There have been four pictures shown of Carol Marcus so far. One – she was seen/heard screaming in SF issue blue uniform; another leaning forward looking at something in SF uniform; another in her underwear and the other in navy blue overalls.

388. Keachick - March 28, 2013

#377 – “and ponder the practicality of Nurse Chapel navigating a rocky cavern with phallic shaped stalactites and stalagmites in the equivalent of a long sleeved t-shirt and hot pants (in regard to said stalactites and stalagmites… Roddenberry got so much pass the censors, omg).”

OMG. That never occurred to me nor did it to my better half…I need to stop coming to this site as I get to read so much sexualization of scenes and people that I never thought could have some symbolic sexual meaning. Oh my…

389. dmduncan - March 28, 2013

If you haven’t seen it, check out Red Letter Media’s review of TMP. Not only is it hilarious but you will come away with a realization of what TMP is really about.

SEX!

It was on GR’s mind a lot.

390. Aurore - March 28, 2013

387. Keachick – March 28, 2013
“….my comments about the need to show the rank of any Starfleet personnel was what I was trying to emphasize….”
_______

Oh, I see…

:)

391. Trekkiegal63 - March 28, 2013

#388 Keachick:

You know, I didn’t either until yesterday. I must have seen that episode a dozen times throughout the years and it never occured to me. But when I was looking for images of harsher terrain from the episodes I remembered featured some, I googled “What Little Girls are Made of Star Trek” under the images section and saw this…

http://www.pinkraygun.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/everything-is-wrong-with-this-pic-of-kirk.jpg

…and yes, I admit it, conclusions were reached at that point. It may be just how that still was taken at just the right moment or whatever. Or maybe I’m reaching. If drawing the conclusion I did means that I’m channeling a little too much Freud, well then, I’m an adult, I own it, maybe I’m channeling too much Freud in this instance. ;)

392. Trekkiegal63 - March 28, 2013

#389 dmduncan:

Ohhh, I like TMP and I like funny. Link, please?

393. Trekkiegal63 - March 28, 2013

And as a follow-up to my post 391 and not to discredit all I’ve said recently because I stand by it 100% and feel the issue very, very important, but that still from WGaMo definitely contains objectification.

… as in, of an actual, non-breathing object. ;)

And yes, trying to be cute, I’ll just go back to work now…

394. Keachick - March 28, 2013

Yes, I have seen that scene with kirk holding that interestingly shaped piece of alien terrain. However, that is not what all of the terrain looks like. What is interesting is that he is holding it and not Nurse Chapel…:)

Sometimes we should be able to cope with a little sexual innuendo/humour without going all pc about it.

I realize that much has been debated and argued here on this and other threads. Two things stand out for me – the fact that no rank insignia seems to be shown on any of the uniforms worn by the women in this Star Trek film iteration. That bugs me more than anything else.

The other thing is that psychology via APA is thrown in to prove some point. I am sorry but I do possess a skepticism about some of this. Psychologists/psychiatrists have often been notoriously wrong at times. Within my lifetime, it was not an uncommon cutting edge practice to perform electric shock therapy and/or lobotomies on patients in order to cure “diseases” like homosexuality. So, forgive me, if I am a bit reticent about accepting the latest doctrine on whatever, especially when my own experiences and understandings may not be aligned.

395. dmduncan - March 28, 2013

392. Trekkiegal63 – March 28, 2013

Mr. Plinkett’s review of TMP is actually within his extended review of ST.09 which you can find here (make sure you click on PART ONE):

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/

396. Desstruxion - March 28, 2013

The Empire cover looks like a bad Old Navy ad.

397. Phil - March 29, 2013

The rank issue goes away if everyone is in the same duty uniform. That really rubs Mary Sue the wrong way, but it’s a practical solution to the problem.

398. dmduncan - March 29, 2013

TOS’s rank solution was great. It just followed naval tradition with cuff braid. Although it was never clearly established if the Enterprise had enlisted ranks, all you really have to do is sit down with your costume designer and fill in the details to make ANY combination of uniforms rank-identifiable.

That’s why you hire costume designers. You can even follow Kirk’s wraparound tunic design for putting rank on sleeveless female uniforms; THAT particular design had an rank braid crossing the collarbone:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120316012615/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/c/cb/Green_wraparound_tunic_with_collar_rank.jpg/494px-Green_wraparound_tunic_with_collar_rank.jpg

I would follow TOS as the guide. I LOVE the different color tunics that identify the family of experts each crew member belongs to.

399. Trekkiegal63 - March 29, 2013

#394 Keachick:

The other thing is that psychology via APA is thrown in to prove some point. I am sorry but I do possess a skepticism about some of this. Psychologists/psychiatrists have often been notoriously wrong at times. Within my lifetime, it was not an uncommon cutting edge practice to perform electric shock therapy and/or lobotomies on patients in order to cure “diseases” like homosexuality.

You are, of course, absolutely entitled to form your own conclusions from the statistics posted. No one is telling you how to think, but if I may point out a few flaws in your argument here?

The two examples you listed are physical treatments, one of which is an invasive treatment (i.e. any treatment which necessitates cutting into the body). The report published by the APA? Not a treatment. Not even a diagnosis. Rather information and statistics on a worrying trend and its harmful adverse reactions, most of which operate subliminally. The only ‘cure’ for objectification is for the media not to do it and/or to educate people on the matter to generate awareness.

Point two, medical science as well as the field of psychology are an ongoing process. To put it in perspective we didn’t even have penicillin on the market until the 1940’s. And up until recently, there was no cure for HIV either (I use the term ‘cure’ loosely as there is still no way to completely irradicate a virus since they reproduced inside of a cell, we can vaccinate against them, mute their effects, and halt their progress, but we can’t ‘cure’ them… though there are some promising studies being done in this regard).

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/health/hiv-functional-cure

Lastly, it is healthy to questions statistics, as anyone who took Stats in college can testify, statistics can be easily manipulated through discarding unfavorable data, over generalizing, and by using biased samples. However, in my reading (and I’ve even posted most of these here) I’ve encountered multiple organizations conducting similar studies to that of the APA and coming up with similar results. seejane.org, for one. Kaiser Permenante for another. And, its important to note, these studies were done independent of one another. So yes, absolutely, questions statistics, but when three separate organizations come to the same conclusion? Do start to wonder.

400. Trekkiegal63 - March 29, 2013

#395. dmduncan:

Thanks! Off to read this now…

401. Aurore - March 29, 2013

357. dmduncan – March 27, 2013
353: “…After all, I note that she is not wearing the red mini on Kronos .”

Hey it looks to me like they are all wearing civilian clothes on Kronos.

__________

dmduncan,

Two slightly different versions of a post I wrote in reply to yours have disappeared.

Thus, I might try to do something “unexpected” in the coming hours to share some “theories” with you.

I hope you won’t mind.
You’ll understand what I mean… if I “succeed” in my attempt to give you my reply.

:)

402. Aurore - March 29, 2013

@ dmduncan

Interestingly, part of my post(s) dealt with rank, as well.

I must say I find your post @ 398, FASCINATING!

I have “failed”, to give you my reply…the way I intended to…

Nevermind….

” I would follow TOS as the guide. I LOVE the different color tunics that identify the family of experts each crew member belongs to.”

Well, I think they did, dmduncan, that is, in part, what I wanted to talk about….

Once again I wanted your informed opinion, you gave it (@ 398)
Thank you.

:)

403. Aurore - March 29, 2013

(Sorry for the multiple posts)

@dmduncan

When I said “I think they did” (@402), I meant that in my opinion, at least for some uniforms, they might have done something with “color” as far as rank is concerned…we’ll see…

404. dmduncan - March 29, 2013

403. Aurore – March 29, 2013

Kirk wears 2 stripes with a broken stripe between on his cuff; the wraparound tunic actually stylizes that pattern. It’s the equivalent of Lieutenant Commander in the following image. Today a Captain in the navy has 4 equal stripes, so it’s a little different in Star Trek but the same idea.

It could be that Starfleet doesn’t have as many officer ranks in its hierarchy as the present day US Navy does, and I think that’s a good thing.

http://www.ccsu.edu/uploaded/images/VHP_Images/Navy_Ranks_Officers.jpg

Star Trek needs somebody (Bob) to “canonize” the rank structure in Starfleet. We need a hard contribution there if it hasn’t already been done.

Need to put a Starfleet equivalent poster like the image I just linked to prominently in one of the movies.

That type of thing is actually posted in military administrative buildings.

405. LizardGirl - March 29, 2013

Trekkiegal

I was finally able to read the link you posted in 379. Thank you! I love that link! Added it to my favorites because I’ll have to read it again.

It’s interesting how styles come back around. The harem pants are worn now. Interestingly, there was an episode of Downton Abbey were the character Sybil, played by Jessica Brown-Findlay, wears a outfit with harem pants that looks EXACTLY like the outfit in the article!

It’s really nice to see all of that history. But sad that clothing was so oppressive in the past. I KNOWI take modern fashion for granted when I see some of the outfits women wore in the past. Thanks again for sharing!

And that video was so cute and funny!

406. Aurore - March 30, 2013

@404. dmduncan – March 29, 2013

Thank you for the link, dmduncan.

As I was saying earlier in one of my posts directed at Rosemary, when I discovered the show years ago, for a very long time, I used to look at the uniforms without really seeing them.

But, taking the characters seriously was easy for me.
I judged them based on their behaviour. And, I liked what I saw.

However, in 2009, when I realised a new Star Trek movie had been released, and, started to surf the Internet in search of information on this new iteration, I noticed that for some people, in my country at least, before the 2009 movie, Star Trek seemed to have been, principally, a show where people wore pyjamas….in space. I am not joking.

Thus, when, amongst other things, you say :

“Star Trek needs somebody (Bob) to ‘canonize’ the rank structure in Starfleet. We need a hard contribution there if it hasn’t already been done.”

…I fully agree with you.

As a matter of fact, I expect no less from the people in charge of making decisions regarding costumes for the sequel.

407. dmduncan - March 30, 2013

406. Aurore – March 30, 2013

You are always welcome Aurore!

408. Keachick - March 31, 2013

Before I came to the internet around August 2009, I had never read and it had never occurred to me that Star Trek had its crew wearing pyjamas. None of the uniforms in any iteration ever remind me of pyjamas. I can’t imagine ever wanting to wear a TOS uniform (male or female) to bed, let alone, the later ones. Daywear – Yes. Nightwear – No way. As for those one-piece outfits – ARGHHH!

I agree with Aurore. I never gave the uniforms much thought, except that I prefer the TOS ones. I was always engrossed in what the characters were saying and doing to think too much about what they were wearing. I could not help but notice what the TOS women wore, but Nichelle Nichols just played Lt Uhura so naturally, so well, that I concentrated on what she was saying, as little as it was sometimes. I think I did that because Kirk always seemed to pay close (professional) attention to whatever she said.

409. Aurore - March 31, 2013

To the fellow fans it may be of interest.

Regarding the mini skirt, Nichelle Nichols gave her opinion,at least once:

(Starts at 9 : 14. Link if authorized, here):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCfE5ORMhrc
_____________________________________________

Here is a (short) documentary on science fiction costume design in movies ( part 1/2 ) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCwGmHMFJbU

_______

And, here is a documentary ; “Inside Star Trek : The Real Story” [a first account by (some) of the insiders].

With Herbert F. Solow.

( Not much regarding costumes in it. But, I personally found it interesting.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fsd6pqMmFY

410. Aurore - April 1, 2013

…And here is a clip about the person credited with having invented the mini-skirt.

(Of course, this claim has been challenged by others…)

:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyLa5WZ8VO4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniskirt

411. John H - April 11, 2013

BREAKING – J.J. Abrams exits STAR WARS VII: “I’m through with narrative film” http://wp.me/p2Z9Vh-5u

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.