Opposing Viewpoints: Star Trek

 

Christie’s side: Two things: (both before the idiot director opened his mouth about needing to have her in her underwear)

Second, yes, she was in her underwear- and it was a nice shot for all the guys- and all the lesbian girls in the audience. She wasn’t gratuitously naked (I thought), it fit in the context of the story; Kirk was in his underwear fit in the story as well (although why he needed literally two sex kittens is another story) and that gave all the women and gay guys eye candy. Can I wish the shower scene with Benedict was in there? Yes. Can I wish that there was actually more interaction between Uhura and Spock? Yes. Am I happy with what they made? Yes. I am more pissed about Transformers and female roles in that.

Not to mention that those two weren’t the ONLY female roles, they were just the NAMED ones. There were female crew members on the bridge- they just weren’t named. Is it wrong? YES. There SHOULD BE more female roles. However, when you take an established franchise like Star Trek, which has established characters and character-types, how are you going to deviate from it? How badly would people have reacted to a female Scotty? Or a non-Russian Chekov? 

So, before the apologies, I didn’t see anything wrong with the scene. Does it make me less of a feminist? No. I just saw it differently. Those are my reactions without the idiot coloring the viewpoint. Now him saying that she HAD to be in her underwear makes it different, but at the time, no it didn’t bother me. The scene from the first one bothered me.

Filed under: star trek, Women's Issues