Over-Active Feminism and Felicia Day

I like Felicia Day.
I like what she is doing and I like how she is doing it.
I like that she seems like a genuinely nice person.
She is someone I think I would like to meet and whom I think I would get along with.

She recently posted on tumblr that she enjoyed Star Trek: Into Darkness but that she feels that there were no strong women in the movie. That women were specifically excluded from all of the high-ranking positions and that JJ should try harder to demonstrate equality in the future that is Star Trek.

While I support the idea of showing women as being completely capable as men I cannot find myself in agreement with Felicia's observations on the movie. I am glad that when I went to see it a second time I did so after having read her post. As such I will address her points in order.
But first I want to remind everyone that this is Star Trek. Star Trek, even the "reboot" has a certain framework that is already established. The creative team that resurrected this franchise and which is bringing us more to enjoy has to work within that framework. At the bare minimum this framework includes the basic archetypes of the main characters:

1. Kirk - Kirk is the center of the show. He IS center screen. He is a womanizing, but brilliant captain. He cares, but more for himself and his "family" than for the people he does not know personally. He breaks rules that don't make sense to do what he feels is the right thing.
2. Spock and McCoy - The two make the second tier of character focus for the show. Their banter and friendship with each other, coupled with their relationship to the captain are reinforcing roles to the show.
3. Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, and Checkov - The main cast of characters are rounded out by this quad of characters. They are essential and integral to the show for a variety of reasons but they have also been third string.


The characters are what they are and the framework that they fall into is what JJ was handed. Too much radical shift in that three-tier character study would have created a failure rather than a success. Having established that those are the main character roles that JJ was shackled with I will move into Felicia's comments and outline those that I feel are in error and why.

Where are the women? The strong women? The women we’d like to see in 200 years? Where are they in this world? They certainly aren’t around the roundtable when the Starfleet are learning about Khan (there might have been one in that scene, if so that extra was not cut to in any significant manner to be notable.)

Upon watching the film a second time I made sure to pay attention to this scene in particular because of the above comment. I payed close scrutiny to the scene and I counter no fewer than 4 women in that room. There may have been a fifth, but I am certain there were four. Were they the focus of attention: no. Were they there: yes. The focus of attention, again, was centered on Kirk and, secondarily, Pike and Marcus. Pike because of the legacy of who Pike is in both the original and the new timelines and Marcus because he was in charge of the room. There was no slighting of any of the other characters as they were ALL ignored. All of them. Kirk was the only one to note the oddity of Khan taking the bag and the only one to say anything because he is the "cowboy" who doesn't know his place and is inflated with a larger sense of self-importance than the rest. Kirk doesn't recognize the hierarchy and, thusly, broke the rules of the meeting. That is why HE spoke up.

In the scene where Kirk gets his ship back and the admiral is having a meeting with “important” people around a table later, I failed to see ONE WOMAN AROUND THAT TABLE, ALL MOSTLY WHITE MEN IMPLIED TO BE MAKING IMPORTANT DECISIONS TOGETHER. Yes, these are just scenes with extras, but seriously, in the future not one woman over 40 is in charge in this world?! How can that happen?

I will give Felicia partial credit on this one. I, too, noticed it the first time. So I paid closer attention the second time. There was one woman around that table and the racial profile of the group was varied. One woman out of approximately 10 people is hardly representative, though. So, while I give her partial credit on this observation, she is still missing the mark in that there was female representation and the woman was older. I also get the implication that this group was comprised of Marcus "yes men" and that they were all hand-picked by Marcus to be his lieutenants and to go along with his decisions. But there is no corroborating evidence for this.

For main characters, Uhura had a FEW nice scenes (as a vehicle to humanize Spock mostly)

I have to point out that Uhura was not "mostly humanizing Spock" when she walked out to confront a group of Klingons without backup.
I have to point out that Uhura was not "mostly humanizing Spock" when she beamed down to engage Khan when he was on the edge of defeating Spock in hand-to-hand combat.
I have to point out that Uhura was not "mostly humanizing Spock" when she initiated the verbal "lover's spat" in Mudd's trade ship on the way to capture Khan. That was all about HER and how SHE felt. That interchange highlighted how strong she is and how she is willing to stand HER ground while still being an effective officer.
I have to point out that Uhura was not "mostly humanizing Spock" when she stated that working with Spock on the away mission wouldn't be a problem and Spock replied "uncertain." To me, in that moment, Uhura commanded the room. She was in charge and both Spock and the Kirk knew it. If ANYONE were to have stayed behind at that point it would have been Spock, not Uhura.

For main characters, Uhura had a FEW nice scenes (as a vehicle to humanize Spock mostly), but that other woman character was the WORST damsel in distress ever. I kept waiting for her turn, waiting for her to not be the victim, to be a bit cleverer, to add to the equation in a “yeah you go girl” way but no, she was there to be sufficiently sexy that Kirk would acknowledge her existence, to be pretty, to serve the plot. I loved her bob. That’s it. What if she had been a less attractive woman, older, overweight? A tomboy? Wouldn’t have that been a tad more interesting choice?

This passage (which has included the Uhura comment again for context) is about Carol Marucs. It saddens me that Felicia missed the point of Carol Marcus in this story. Carol Marcus could NOT have been "a less attractive woman, older, overweight? A tomboy?" as she is already defined. She is the mother of Kirk's son. She HAS to be similar in age and of the type that would attract Kirk. It's continuity. Her physical condition and appearance was already defined in the original timeline. JJ had a limited scope of how he could adjust this character and none of that leeway would let her fall outside of Kirk's taste in women.

Or at least give her a moment where she’s not a princess waiting to be saved.

Like the one where she stood up to Kirk, McCoy and everyone else and refused to be beamed back to the Enterprise so that she could save McCoy?
Like the one where she stood up to her father and told him he would have to kill her, too, if he proceeded to destroy the Enterprise?
Like the one where, upon seeing her father in person, she slapped him in the face and told him she was ashamed to be his daughter?
I think those were all points that outlined strength of character and competency to stand for her convictions and her ability to DO on her own.

I don’t know if I’m extra sensitive about this issue or what, but I don’t think so, it’s a trend in media today.

I hate to say this, Felicia, but I think you are super-sensitive to this. If you watch the film a second time pay attention to the background. There are women EVERYWHERE. The Enterprise bridge is staffed with nearly half women at all points in the film. Engineering has women. Sick bay has women. The hallways have women. They were even equal-opportunity in killing unknown crew members when the ship is being shredded in the firefight and when it is careening out of control on a crash course. The main story is focusing around the main characters and they are predefined. Yes, they were predefined in the 1960s when the role of women was much less acknowledged, but they are the framework that the show is suspended on.

When I walk into the theater, I see men on posters. Mostly white men, the same men we see over and over in movies. Seth Rogen, Owen Wilson, Brad Pitt etc. Where did the women go? We are telling people that only men are worth centering storytelling around, and that’s just bullshit.

I could provide a few counter examples to this but, on reflection, I realized that there are so few of them that they reinforce the point. This is a problem and I won't try to say otherwise.

And the problem is we unconsciously define the world and our culture through media. These things are subliminal, we absorb them, they formulate the “given” that influences people’s life choices.

Despite my wishing otherwise the media does a great job of programming us. I like to think that I have risen above it to make my own decisions but, even with the conscious effort to do so I find that I am influenced heavily by the norms portrayed by our media. I find this to be problematic for many reasons.

It might be a little thing on the surface, but this stuff is what prevents women from being as interested in math, or business people or tech etc. Where are the examples of women in media to strive for, to make that stuff seem possible?

Both of these are astute observations. The squashing of interest in math and science among the female population is a HUGE problem. And it is a problem that is not perpetrated by the media. It is a problem that is perpetrated by long-lasting gender stereotypes and reinforced by the media. The people who make the media believe it and, thus, they reinforce the message to the younger crowd. This is a meta-problem; a derivative problem; a recursive problem. Hopefully it will continue to recurse itself out of existence.

So, while I agree with Felicia on he thoughts that we should deviate from someone who fits my gender and racial stereotype as the main character I can say that there is a lot of that out there. There is more than she seems ready to see. Not enough, certainly, but more than is readily apparent (look at Will Smith, for example).

I look forward to the introduction of more female characters because I admire and respect strong women. I find them attractive and I would much prefer to have women who know who they are and can assert themselves as people in my life than those who are happy to be the damsel in distress and be walked over by a jerk who will take advantage of that. But there is also a balance. If we swing the culture the other way too heavily we do no one a service. We alienate an equal portion of the population as customers and as developing adults. The only real way to move forward is to reach a point where gender and race have no bearing on story and casting decisions just as they shouldn't have any bearing on hiring practices nor on friendships or anything else.


EDIT: I forgot to mention that in the re-christening sequence near the end of the film the admiralty board that is on stage with Kirk is about half older women.

Inception

I recently saw the movie “Inception.”

Although I predicted the ending roughly one third of the way into the movie I found it to be an intriguing journey of the mind. In the pilot of the TV show “Firefly” the character named Shepard Book stated that “getting there is the worthier part.” Shepard Book's words from that episode could not be more perfectly suited to any story being told on the silver screen than they are to “Inception.”

One could spend hours discussing the visual spectacles present in this film. One could spend an equal amount of time discussing how the use of 3D technology was NOT used in this film and how that was the correct decision. One COULD spend hours discussing these aspects of the movie, but that would be  a waste of their time. The visual aspects of the film, while intriguing and stunning, are insignificant compared to the concepts that the movie presents.

While technically a spoiler the marketing campaign for the movie released the knowledge that this movie explores the nature of dreams. Dreams are a fantastic topic and MANY genre films have explored it but none have explored it in quite the same way. “Inception” explores dreams on multiple levels. It explores them as a topic to be discussed while awake. It explores them as a surrealistic projection of our mind. “Inception” even explores the idea of fragments of our minds manifesting in our dreams as separate characters.

While “Inception” does not explore the nature of dreams in exactly the same way as any other movie it does share a similar question about the nature of dreaming and what dreaming means to us as the movie “Vanilla Sky” (released in 2001). Both movies explore what it means to be stuck in a dream and both movies explore it in different ways, yet both pose the same question to the viewer. That question was explicitly stated by the character Morpheus in “The Matrix.” That question is: “what is real?”

“Inception,” “Vanilla Sky” and “The Matrix” all ask this question in different ways and with different levels of obviousness. “The Matrix” asks it blatantly, where both “Inception” and “Vanilla Sky” ask it in a more subtle way.

One could keep comparing the three movies mentioned above, but that would prevent you from examining the works for yourself. One could also create a much deeper conversation surrounding how “Inception” (or the other films) explore the nature of reality but not without extensive spoilers.

I HIGHLY recommend you check out “Inception” for yourself if you enjoy examining the nature of reality and the world around you. I encourage you to count the layers of the movie. Count the layers, watch the totems, and, most of all, be sure to always pay attention to how you got where you are. Enjoy the ride for it truly is the “worthier part” of this film.

Bad Science in Movies Bothers Me

Like most people of a geeky persuasion I enjoy science fiction.
Like many people who have an adrenal system I enjoy movies with some good action and/or adventure in them.
The other night I watched Terminator: Salvation for the first time.
I had heard that it was a bad film. I had heard that Christian Bale's performance was flat and boring.
What I had not heard was how badly they sacrificed science for the overall movie.

WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW

This is a problem with Hollywood. They often decide to "enhance" certain parts of the film to make it more intense. I can tolerate "enhancement" of certain things for the sake of storytelling and making a more entertaining product.
One example of this is the misrepresentation of ballistic physics in the movies. Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. If I shoot a gun at a robot that weighs 500+ pounds and the impact of the bullet is able to knock that robot through the air for a few feet than the recoil from that shot would hurl me twice as far in the opposite direction.

What bothers me is when they decide to through science completely out the window when it applies to critical plot points.
This movie has two examples of this. The first (chronological order) is something that I have seen in movies before and each time it hurts my rational brain. Conventional (e.g. chemical) explosives work alike. They ALL burn. They burn VERY fast. When they burn (VERY fast) they produce hot off-gassing as the reaction process. This hot off-gassing happens ALL AT ONCE and creates a pressure wave as all of that gas tries to make room for all of the other gas all at once. The result is that all of the gas moves away from the center of the reaction at a high rate of speed. This is how gun powder works. This is how gasoline works. It is, essentially, the same exact reaction as a conventional fire, or rusting (yes, rusting), or aging but VERY VERY fast.
Nuclear bombs do not work this way. They do not release chemical energy. They work by breaking the bonds of the nucleus (hence the name) and, in doing so, converting a very small amount of matter directly into energy along the famous E=MC^2 equation. A teensy tiny bit of matter turns into a GIGANTIC wave of raw energy. Raw energy is, essentially, movement of particles. Movement of particles is, essentially, heat. It takes special apparatus that is configured exactly right with the proper catalyst and proper fuel (e.g. dense material that is easily split-able OR very not dense material that is easily smashed together) to create a nuclear reaction. Haphazardly placed chemical explosives do NOT make for the means to cause a nuclear reaction. If John Connor had done what he did then the resulting explosion would NOT have triggered all of the T800 nuclear power cells to explode in a nuclear fireball. What would happen is that the cells themselves would have been destroyed and the fuel spread out by the explosion's pressure wave. If the cells were fusion cells then the fuel would have burned (conventionally, not in a nuclear fireball) because that fuel would have been hydrogen. If the cells were fission cells then the material would have been excellent shrapnel that was probably radioactive. The entire facility would not have exploded. Skynet would not have been destroyed.
The second incident was just before the end of the movie. It was stated repeatedly during the movie that Marcus' heart was human. One cannot simply transplant any person's heart into another. There are tests. For starters the blood types have to be compatible. If the blood types are compatible (along with the other tests) then the transplant can occur BUT the recipient will be on anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their life. Somehow I don't think that they were able to perform the battery of tests to confirm compatibility between the two people nor would they have been able to replace the blood loss during the operation nor were they likely to find any anti-rejection drugs at all, let along the quantity that John would have needed to survive. The last scene was not needed. It did not make the movie better and it completely disregards the majority of the medical science that goes into the idea of organ transplants.


People often wonder why Americans are so ignorant and misinformed about science. It's because we spend money on movies that completely misrepresent how science concepts work and then strip-mine our educational system so that our kids don't even know that the movies are wrong let alone HOW wrong. Of course, the broken education system is a completely different topic for many posts over many days.


If you want to check out this bad movie you can order it here:




                             




And you can locate the third movie in the series (also bad) here:

                    



The related TV show (that erased the 3rd movie from the timeline in the pilot episode):
         



There's good news here:
The first two movies were great. You can get them here: