einahpets: (Yodel)
[personal profile] einahpets
As people know, the new Trek movie has a few things that went and upset people. Today TrekMovie.com posted an article about a shot that could be seen as sexist. Well I attempted to write a response that kinda analyzed why people would see that. But it was deleted mere minutes after I replied to the article. That actually made me LOL (and not all surprised because I'm sure it would have sparked some hot debate that would spiral into wank and attack). Fortunately I have a LJ where I can post this mini essay!

As a disclaimer I talk about Star Trek Into Darkness spoilers. Also, I'm not really all upset over what happened in the scene because it's a product of society. The best thing to do is just realize it, not to get so upset over it, and try to educate others to be smarter movie goers and analyze what we're being shown.



If we were to remove the changing scene, the movie would not be affected in the least.  You could have had the conversation scene in the shuttle bay, without her changing, and then switch planetside where we can see McCoy and Marcus in the mission jumpsuits. Like an intelligent audience, we would have assumed they changed sometime during the scene jump.

However, we do have the changing scene. So let's look at it a bit more closely and try to understand why people are reading it as sexist, gratuitous, and purely a fanservice moment. It all has to do with the directing, composition, and editing.

Let's start with the scene being used as the counter argument by The Powers That Be, specifically Kirk in bed. In my opinion, comparing the two scenes is like comparing apples to oranges, they're both fruits but ultimately different. First off, the nude aspect was not the forefront of the shot. I would say that the forefront of the shot was Kirk being pulled away from a good time. Not to mention, it kinda makes sense to be undressed for sex. Unless I'm missing something about copulation. Also he had a sheet covering his modesty. Lastly, and I think this is the most important aspect, in Kirk's 'naked' shot the camera has it so our eyes meet Kirk's face at eye/conversation level.

On the other hand, Marcus' shot was completely meant to show her body and done in a scene not set up as a precursor to mature content.
Let's be analytical movie viewers for a second and look closely, past the obvious that is her body.
The shot is arranged to force the viewer's eyes to look directly at her torso, in focus, and straight on with no distractions. JJ intentionally chose to do the shot like that. The camera angle says it all. By being positioned below human eye/conversation level, we have to look up her body to finally get to her face. This perspective is done solely to showcase her body and have the viewer almost mentally take off her under garments.
I can't emphasis enough how intentional the choice to focus on her assets, not her face, was.

Now this is where it gets dodgy and why people are wondering 'why?'
There really was no point for the shot to be done like this unless you were going for fanservice. You could have had the same exact scenario ... still have Marcus changing in the shuttle bay, still have Kirk there, have him peeking, and even some flirting. All the director had to do was be more creative, change the composition and camera angle making it so the audience got the hint that Kirk was taking a looksie but done without exploiting her body and 'objectifying' her.
Instead JJ intentionally went for the torso shot and what we have now is a screenful of body and a lot of disagreements.

I'm not saying gratuitous shots are bad. However, when this is the only gratuitous body shot at this camera angle in the whole film (and it doesn't really add anything to the scene) it stands out. It's why we're all hearing it now. Cause yeah, it can be read as sexist. Especially when you see the deleted 'Khan shower scene' and realize that even though he's nude, the camera angle is such that you're looking at him at 'eye/conversation level.' The same level we saw Kirk in his 'nude' scene. Even though the shot is panning up his chest, his body is turning from the side to the front so by the time the camera gets to his face, we're at eye level.
So the final count is two 'nude' men shots at eye/conversation level with other things going on in the background and one female in her underwear shot focused on her at torso level.

Now some questions.
Does the perspective of these type of shots in movies have an impact to how we think about men vs women? Is it possible that shots like this send a subconscious message to viewers? Would you take one gender more seriously than the other? Also, would your respect for a man/woman change if these camera angles were switched? ie. a woman undressed seen at eye level and a man semi clothed seen at torso level.
Imagine the changing scene set up exactly as it is, same perspective and angle, but instead of Marcus we see Kirk in a speedo. Would this type of shot objectify the Captain? Would you respect Kirk in a position of authority if you saw him like this?
Not to get too deep but I think these are good questions to think about. Not just in Star Trek, but in all media.

HOWEVER

If you're going to go for the sexy and fanservice, there should be gratuitous shots like this showcasing and objectifying both women AND men.

Were there to be a reedit, I would suggest that the Khan in shower scene be put back in, just for the sake of some Cumberbatch skin. Also, I think JJ should seriously reconsider the wetsuit scenes. Specifically the choice he made to have digital editing done to diminish the obviousness of Captain Fine's derriere and package.
By making changes like that there would be some nice sexy, and we get to see objectification of men along with women. Also it will help draw in both the fanboys and fangirls. Especially if you direct some fanservice to the female fans.

On a real serious note, the creative team may want to get a woman on board to consult with. A new perspective can't do anything but help and perhaps open their eyes to a different viewpoint.
Let's not forget some TOS favorites were penned by a woman.


(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 12:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fuzzytomato02.livejournal.com
MTE!! Great essay on it. totally agree with the angle of the shot.

I would just add that the nude Kirk scene takes nothing away from his character. We know who Kirk is, his motivations, him, etc etc and his naked scene in no way diminishes what we know about Kirk. It doesn't reduce him to merely eye candy.

As for Carol, she's new. We don't know much about her other than the quick rattle off of her credentials that she has not put into use yet. And suddenly, she's eye candy. So what do we know of her character by that scene?? well, she's hot and she's supposedly a weapons technician. that's it. She is not nearly as well fleshed out (heh heh) as the male characters and Uhura so in that scene she is reduced to eye candy.

Anyway, I'm not as torn up about it as other people. One of the writers came out and said he wished that scene was not in the movie. So I do think that at least one person on the creative team recognizes it was gratuitous and might think about that when writing in the future.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 01:00 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
I took a film class once and it's had a lasting impact for me when it comes to analyzing film. Usually I can sit back and ignore what's going on directorial wise and just be entertained. But when something I like starts to get analyzed, I can't help but turn the switch back on. I guess I'm forever a student like that!

Exactly, Kirk is still the same as before. He comes out of the scene the same he was before. Perhaps people reflect on it and wish they were in his position. I guess a lot of this also ties into gender roles and how they're portrayed, but that just opens a whole can of never ending discussion.

Trek fans have even more back story on her, especially if they watched Star Trek II Wrath of Khan. But you're essentially right, all we know is she's a scientist and knows about weapons. Beyond that what we see is what we get.

I appreciate the writer coming out and saying that. It's unusual that someone actually comes out and says 'Yeah, you're kinda right.' Heck even in the Conan interview JJ agreed and mention he saw how the shot could be taken the wrong way (Though I really do disagree with his 'playboy' Kirk opinion). Personally, I think the creative team is just so submerged in the status quo and male perspective they really did not think it would be such a big deal. It's not a bad thing that they missed it, just something they should be aware of before things are released.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 01:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fuzzytomato02.livejournal.com
I need to rewatch Wrath of Khan. I know Kirk has a kid with her :) but I don't remember much other than Kirk and Spock and Chekov! <3

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 01:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
I know in TWoK she also hated Starfleet, which is why she never trusted them and didn't tell David who his dad was. I can't help but feel the death of Carol's dad and what Admiral Marcus did would have been a great way to seed the dislike of Starfleet in her character.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 12:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] leashy-bebes.livejournal.com
I agree so much. The scene made me roll my eyes (as did the parade of old white dudes during the Starfleet round table bit early on, and even the lines about Chapel to an extent) but the thing is, if I didn't watch things that were semi-problematic, I wouldn't watch anything. It sucks, but like you say, I think encouraging a little bit of critical thinking is the way to go. This is what headcanon and fanfic were made for ;)

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 01:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
During the Starfleet round table scene I focused on the one Vulcan woman with the nice Asian inspired hair. So I didn't notice anyone else XD I was so happy to see a Vulcan woman with long hair, I hate after TOS they all had bowl cuts. I don't like that styling choice!!

Exactly, continue to educate and criticize what you love cause that's the only way it's going to get better! For all else there's fanfic.
Edited Date: 2013-05-24 01:12 am (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 04:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] geekslave.livejournal.com
I can see why people are upset about it. It didn't bother me too much, just made me roll my eyes and wonder what exactly was the point.

I definitely agree with you that the excuse that they objectify the men as well is not an apt comparison. Kirk's a ladies' man, they probably could have chosen to have him doing something else while he was off the Enterprise but showing him cavorting around with women made sense. And most naturally, he would be shirtless. The scene with Carol really was unnecessary and drew attention to itself.

If the angle had been changed and Kirk was in the same postion I would have still respected Kirk. I didn't lose respect for Carol because of the shot (I had no real opinion of her at that point.)

Stacey

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 05:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
This movie got a few eye rolls from me. Compared to Spock screaming a certain name, the eye roll I gave for Marcus' undies shot barely registered!

I think I just want to see Kirk objectified in a similar manner to how women get shown. Equal opportunity and all! ;)

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 04:51 am (UTC)
ext_193357: (Default)
From: [identity profile] lulabel.livejournal.com
I agree completely with your points! I hadn't thought of the specifics of the camera angles that you mentioned, but I had noticed that the camera action basically paused completely on her, full frontal, like taking a snap-shot. Totally gratuitous. As you said, it would have been completely different if the camera was used from Kirk's eye-level, mimicking the movement and angle of him peeking over his shoulder.

I really wish we had gotten some nice long gratuitous shots of Kirk and McCoy wearing those skin-tight wetsuits. (I could eat them with a spoon) That would definitely have balanced things out in terms of male/female eye candy.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 05:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
I think it would have been far more clever to do something like that. It would have been the first time we got 'in' Kirk's head and maybe we'd realize he was more serious about this woman compared to others, a bit of a hint to the relationship he had with Carol in the TOS verse (though his womanization characterization in the AOS verse bothers me).

They should have done that! I'm all about equal opportunity objectification!!

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 08:50 am (UTC)
ext_354884: (Spock - well fuck me!)
From: [identity profile] awarrington.livejournal.com
Came here from your [livejournal.com profile] ontd_startrek comment. I'm sorry your post on Trek Movie got deleted - you make some very relevant points that I guess the guys don't want to hear.

I have to say, another scene with a dodgy camera angle really annoyed me was when Uhura leaves the shuttle to go talk to the Klingons. The first shot is at knee level, looking up at her ass with the Klingons in the background, reminding me of the kind of objectification of women you typically get in comics.

Image

Apologies for all the edits! :-/
Edited Date: 2013-05-24 08:55 am (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 02:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
I'm not all surprised that it got deleted. I guess it was getting too introspective on how gender is portrayed in media. God forbid we upset the fanboys. ;)
I'm just glad I had a venue to share my thoughts via LJ!

Oh comics. Always a happy place for women there XD
But yeah, one could probably just focus on the camera POV and try to understand why that choice was made. Though it would probably upset more than one director if you started questioning their 'artistic eye.' Which is why people should do it more often!

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 02:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thalialunacy.livejournal.com
This is freaking awesome. Mind if I link?

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 03:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
Please do!

I attempted to try a condensed post on TrekMovie. Basically I tried to remove any screams of sexist and just point out the differences in the camera angles. Let's see if it gets deleted.
God forbid I criticize the directing choices.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 03:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thalialunacy.livejournal.com
ooo good for you! I am interested to see how it rolls out...

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-24 04:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
The thread probably died down because it's day 2, but in any case at least it wasn't deleted.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-06-02 04:24 am (UTC)

Just a lurker from ontd-startrek intruding

Date: 2013-05-25 10:46 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Great observations, I couldn't agree more!

There was another, less obvious, fanservice shot with Lieutenant Uhura earlier in the film. As she approaches the Klingons on Kronos the camera (and our eyes) follow her at thigh-level, slowly moving up to include her rear and lower back. The camera stays here for noticeable seconds, with Uhura's (undeniably fantastic) ass filling about half the screen and the Klingon patrol party filling the other.

Instead of conveying to me her bravery in going up against a dozen or so armed and angry Klingons, I felt like the movie was telling me, "I know she's not in a mini-dress or skin-tight dive-suit, but don't forget how hot she is!" Except I don't need that kind of reminder; I'm seeing her beauty and bravery first-hand. All of this following a very touching scene between Spock and herself (and Kirk) about love and confronting death.

A scene panning down and across, sweeping in from high above the shuttle and then approaching and settling behind Uhura at shoulder level as she walks towards the Klingons would have been much more effective to me.

Or maybe this is all nonsense and I am too easily distracted by the booty.

I wholeheartedly agree that there was nothing at all to distract us from Carol's undressed state in her scene. She is all there is to look at in frame. With Kirk and the (cat?)women, there is plenty to look at that isn't Kirk's chest. The women's tails and ear ridges held my attention, especially as one of the two was in the foreground.

And reducing Christine Chapel to a former love interest of Captain Fine's that HE DOESN'T EVEN REMEMBER. Um, sorry Captain, but Nurse Chapel is not and has not been interested. I understand the impulse to throw in old references for extra points from the Trekkies (and I speak as a Trekkie), but making Nurse Chapel nothing more than a conquest just because the humanfemalestrugglingtounderstandMrSpock role has been filled is not okay.

Despite all this (and the whitewashing ffs the whitewashing), I couldn't help but love this movie. So much great dialogue for the characters and I loved Carol Marcus. From the trailer I expected to dislike her (a clip of her nearly naked and a clip of her screaming - really?), but Alice Eve's acting was fantastic and Carol's story was compelling. The Uhura/Spock relationship was almost, almost enough to convert me to the ship, but not quite yet. JJ's (or the writer's, whoever) reasoning for having the pairing altogether (Spock needed someone to comfort him after the loss of his planet) has left a bad taste in my mouth that hasn't left. Also, Uhura/Scotty is where it's at. But all of the ladies on the bridge were wonderful, if only some of them had more than a line a piece (and if at least one was an Andorian. Where are the Andorians???).

Sorry for this huge comment! Trek gets me so carried away and your essay inspired many thoughts.

-T

P.S. CFine's bulge should never be diminished. I mean, really?

lurk away!

Date: 2013-05-25 02:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
Shot composition is always a really interesting aspect for me, when I bother to pay attention to it. Usually I can easily be a slack jawed audience member, but every once in a while I get the urge to analyze it (and lets face it, when the subject matter is a fan related matter it gets real easy). As we look on the screen the camera becomes our eyes and we get told what to look at and from where. Breaking down why we're looking at a particular thing and what we should get from it is always the fun part. Be it for good or bad. Heck, maybe we're just misreading all the compositions, but I like to think not.

I really wish they would think about adding a woman to the creative team. So much could be rethought out. Like I said, that undressing scene could have still be in there but if one person said the straight on shot was gratuitous and reducing Marcus to a sex object, there may have been more creative directing.

On a side note, the general male opinion on what is objectification/what isn't seems to be vastly different from women's stances on it, if the TrekMivie comment section is to be taken at face value. And that actually really bothers me. Everyone is shaped by society and what we're exposed to (which is why I don't like Kirk's characterization as a womanizer in this reboot). To continue to see one viewpoint over and over again in various media platforms can't help but shape the common man's everyday behavior. No matter how innocent the incidents may be. Perhaps I'm just over thinking this all. Or maybe I'm just impressed that people can't see it.

The more interviews I see the more I can't help but love Alice Eve. And I liked her character a lot.
Going to be honest, not in the movies for the romance aspect (K/S on the other hand ...) I hope if they bring Carol back it's not to just pair her with Kirk.

I think the reason this essay even got written was because I like Trek so much and want to see it continue to be progressive. Without discussion no one can make things better.

On my list of things to do is a rewatch. Though I wonder if my entertainment will diminish now that I've been analyzing so much from the film. I can only hope not! If JJ left Chris's wetsuits scenes alone, it would be less of a hardship. ;)

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-25 03:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cymbalism219.livejournal.com
I am glad you bothered! I love the points you brought up about angle of shot and what it implies about the gaze/intent of the viewer as well as the effects on characterization. Such an important and not often critically discussed issue. While Marcus in her unders was about as lol whut? as the werewolf kid in Twilight ripping off his t-shirt after two second of screen time, this focused backlask against it is curious to me. Trek has a long history of ogling women (in ALL franchises) and Uhura stripped down to her bra and panties in the first movie, for considerably more screen time . . .

Sorry they deleted your comment. :\ Poor form, dudes.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-25 05:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
To me the scene was just so glaringly obvious to be a fan service moment. While I don't mind if a film maker chooses to show things like this, I think they can come up with something better than a T&A shot in a situation where it was totally uncalled for. Be more creative with the lust shots! You're getting paid millions for a reason, sheesh.

From the comments I read, the main arguments people are using range from her 'consent' to Kirk ignoring 'no means no' and all the way to 'it's inappropriate for this scene to exist because of command dynamics.'
Personally I see these arguments as secondary reasons why the shot can be read as objectification/sexist. That's not to say these should be dismissed, because they certainly are valid points. The problem with using these arguments to people who don't see 'it,' is that they will just dismiss your claim as an over analyzed reading into something that 'just isn't there.' Even though in all likelihood it is there. This type of casual dismissal can be very frustrating and cause lots of heated debate (as we have all have seen).

I feel by critiquing the shots on their own merit as a visual, like one would a piece of art, you cannot deny how the image is composed. There is a natural way the eye will view it and conclusions can be made based on the order you take things in.
So in the case of Kirk's shot you're at eye level, the level where you focus on the person. In Marcus' shot it's a lower viewpoint. By making Marcus' shot have eye level at her torso, the visual is sent up to look at her body. A neutral conclusion on it's own, until you remember there's a reason faces/eyes are blurred if you want to conceal an identity. So would the shot fall under objectification, I would say yes. Is it be sexist? Perhaps, let's keep in mind it's the only shot like this in the whole movie.
I say if you're going to objectify people, objectify both genders. That way everyone is happy (or upset ... whatever the case may be).

I've been able to get a few comments in since I attempted to share this, but nothing as provocative.
Some of the male responses on TrekMovie have actually made me wonder if they're really that thick. The male viewpoint is such a dominating aspect of society and the moment someone questions it they become so defensive. It's sad really.
Fortunately most agree that the shot was gratuitous. Getting them to see that it may be objectifying women is the harder hurtle.

I'm still surprised I have so much to say on the matter. Clearly I've craved stimulating debate.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-25 06:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cymbalism219.livejournal.com
And all this from the girl who doesn't like writing long essays! You may have just found yourself a conference paper, my friend. ;)

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-25 06:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
OMG
How did that happen???

Love this!

Date: 2013-05-28 02:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mage-989.livejournal.com
I love this post! All the camera angle talk is bringing out my former film study classes too. And I find it interesting to think about the whole Uhura talking to the Klingons shot that another poster brought up, because they hit on the thing that was bugging me about it when I first watched the film. In the theatre I was like okay Uhura is being a badass in going alone to use her skills, why don't I like this shot? It's because of the angle. Our gaze is being drawn to her butt, it's objectification. It would actually be really interesting to compare shots of men and women in this film and see what the angle is focused on. I may have an excuse to buy this when it comes out on DVD after all.

With the Carol shot I'm actually surprised there's more backlash to that because I thought Uhura undressing in the last film was just as bad and no one seemed to care about that at all.

Also honestly I really don't buy JJ Abrams' defense of the shot. Number one we already got to see Kirk's womanizing nature earlier with him being in bed and saying "hey ladies" as he and Spock go to see Pike. I think that nature is bullshit and a complete slap in the face to the character of Kirk Prime, but that's a rant for another time. So from a character perspective your hitting on a point we've already seen, it's pointless.

From a logical perspective it makes no sense because we see that McCoy goes down with Carol so why doesn't she just get changed after Kirk leaves to go get McCoy? Why change when he is present?

Also the whole male objectification thing with the shower shot holds no weight for me because that scene was cut. So Abrams you decided that the shot of the half-dressed man should be cut for length or because it wasn't necessary story-wise or whatever, so why did you think the shot of the half-dressed woman needed to remain?

And don't get me started on the Christine Chapel conversation they have right before the panty shot. I mean really filmmakers really? You thought it was important to Majel Barrett's memory not to re-cast the voice of the computer, at least I don't think the computer speaks in this film. But when it comes to the flesh and blood character she played on the show, apart from Number One who has apparently vanished into the ether in this universe, you decided the shout out she was going to get was a one line Kirk conquest, which makes him look like an unprofessional ass, instead of just letting her be a nurse helping McCoy in the big climax. Did you think the audience would get confused if there was more than one blonde female character in this movie? Why just...ARGH!!!
Edited Date: 2013-05-28 02:14 am (UTC)

Re: Love this!

Date: 2013-05-28 03:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
Wonderful to hear I'm not just preaching to the wind! ;) I actually studied fine art in college, as well as analyzed tons of films in film/English classes, so breaking down compositions and symbolism is ingrained in the way I look at the world.

I've actually managed to get a few more comments posted to TrekMovie trying to get people to analyze the camera angle and composition, but most people over there get hung up trying to justify the scene as part of the story canon instead of a decision made by the director for it to be fanservice.

I actually didn't notice the shot with Uhura. The next time I see it, I'll be sure to keep an eye out. But I agree, it would be very interesting to pull out every objectifying shot. Just to start a more intense dialog on female vs male objectification in the new films.

I think the Carol shot is getting more backlash because there isn't even a legit reason for it. At least Uhura's scene is in a bedroom (even though I never changed down to my underwear in front of my roommate) and we can pretend it's somewhat in context. I think overall people will try and justify these shots, but when it's so unrealistic to the point of sticking out, it's hard to rationalize.

I really dislike JJ's generalization and pushing that Kirk is a womanizer. Definitely a boohiss characterization for me.

Exactly, no reason to strip down to your underwear while on the job. I don't buy it as flirting, cause you can flirt without taking clothes off.

I don't buy the shower shot either, but when he brought it up in the interview it was like a halfassed attempt at going 'see, I shot a naked guy!' But yeah, it was taken out. Much like the editing he did on Kirk's wetsuit scenes. Female parts in, male parts out. Not really equal opportunity exploitation.

Christine Chapel shouldn't have been a throw away line like that. They would have been better off not even making a reference. It's like they forgot how Majel's first role, Number One, was taken away because a woman in command wasn't realistic. So to remove Chapel in this verse because of Kirk's womanizing ways is really annoying. Heck, I would have accepted the 'she left because of Kirk' line if they said that she decided to go back to school to become a MD.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-31 11:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pslasher.livejournal.com
They kinda did the same thing to Uhura in XI, come to think of it.

I agree with your analysis, it's smart and accurate. But to add to it, showing Kirk in a completely consensual sexual situation (and Khan doing something normal like bathing) is different than showing Marcus getting oogled after repeatedly telling Kirk not to look.* And Kirk had this stupid look like he'd never seen a woman before and somehow couldn't look away. I really don't understand how they thought that scene would fly. If they are trying to set up a relationship I fail to see how that is a good start.

*Not to mention the fact that her Starfleet issued uniform that she wears while on duty is so impractical she has to actually change before she does *her job* (and also anything useful for the narrative). I'm all for showing the sexy while off duty, but let's just be real about that, you know?

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-31 03:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
Exactly, though most people let it slide because it least we could stretch it into working with the scene.

So true, ogling and showing a normal situation are so different. It kinda reenforced the message woman are only there to be looked at, which is kinda the whole reason why people are a bit annoyed at this. Especially in a franchise known to be progressive.

I was actually able to have some more conversations with the fanboys over at TrekMovie and so many were convinced that the shot wasn't for fanservice because it's totally how Kirk is looking at her. I had to point out to them that the forward facing torso shot we see of Marcus isn't even from Kirk's POV. Huh, not from the male character's POV, then why are we looking at Marcus like this if it wasn't for fanservice? If anything Kirk's the only guy in the entire theater who is still making eye contact with her and looking at her face (I'm guessing this based on where Marcus is looking in that shot). Meanwhile the director forces the audience into becoming Peeping Toms and they don't even realize it! When I explained it like that, one of the fanboys actually told me it's extremely creepy if it's true.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-31 03:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pslasher.livejournal.com
Yeah, everyone in the room was in their skivvies.

Especially in a franchise known to be progressive.
Bingo.

Interesting, I'm glad you're still attempting the discussion and that it's getting through to some.
Edited Date: 2013-05-31 03:42 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-31 07:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reni-m.livejournal.com
Yeah, I spent last weekend stalking the comments. Such a jumble of opinions. Though at least I got one person to think about it instead of going with the status quo.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-05-31 07:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pslasher.livejournal.com
Hey, that's one person :)

Profile

einahpets: drawn and altered by me. (Default)
einahpets

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324 252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios