BS: 'Star Trek- movie

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Dan Schatz
Date: 11 May 09 - 02:50 PM

I really shouldn't get into this - seems to be a hot button emotional issue, but here goes anyway....

I wasn't offended by the Ferengi (though I found them annoying and overplayed) - but I did note the similarity between them and the way Jews were often portrayed in old anti-Semitic stereotypes. It's hard to miss the similarities between the portrayal of the Ferengis and the first minute or two of, for example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZftD3gfW3g (And that clip is tame, portraying the gentiles as just as bad.)

I don't think this was because of any intention on Gene Roddenberry's part - his anti-racist, multicultural credentials are impeccable - but rather because the things in society he wanted to criticize also happened to be traits that at one time people laid at the feet of Jews. That doesn't make him or anyone on the Star Trek writing team an anti-Semite, but they probably could have been more sensitive to what some people would see and adjusted their direction accordingly.
Some of these stereotypes are VERY old - read The Merchant of Venice for a prime example.

As I say, I'm not offended, because I don't believe there was any real connection between idea of the Ferengi and the old stereotypes. Instead, I think that the list of traits Roddenberry and others wanted to condemn just happened to have much in common with those old stereotypes. It would be nice if those stereotypes had passed completely out of memory (and apparently for some, they have) but sadly, there are living people - some of my relatives included - who have had to face that kind of thinking.

On another, and far more interesting (to me) topic - I understand that Roddenberry wanted to go much further in his vision of a crew made up of a variety of cultures, with men and women both serving in roles of authority, but the networks wouldn't let him - especially as regards women. After a few early episodes with a strong women as second in command, the network forced them back to women in servile or secretarial roles, with short mini-skirts. Too bad.

I'm looking forward to the new movie.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Dan Schatz
Date: 11 May 09 - 03:04 PM

Oops! My mistake. Did the link backwards - it should be
this movie here.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 09 - 03:26 PM

In the first pilot that Gene Roddenberry submitted to the network, with Jeffery Hunter as Capt. Christopher Pike, his first officer was played by Majel Barrett (later Nurse Chapel and Deanna Troi's flaky mother), and was known only as "Number One."

She was one strong lady! And perfectly capable of taking over command of a star ship and mounting a rescue mission, which she did when Capt. Pike was kidnapped by the Talosians.

The network do-dahs had wall-eyed fits, objecting to

1. – That woman! Get her off the bridge!
2. – That guy with the ears. He looks like the devil, and he might offend our religious viewers!
3, – That's an intelligent story, and it expects people to be able to think! This is television, for Chrissake!!

Yup! That's television, all right.

Don Firth

P. S. But we must have made some progress, because some years later, we had Captain Katherine Janeway in command of the Voyager, with a Native American first officer and a black Vulcan as second officer and chief of security.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:11 PM

The lack of respect that the entertainment industry has for the intelligence of the general public is legendary. Put into practice, it sadly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because if you feed people nothing but empty, predictable garbage for entertainment then the tastes and expectations of the public rapidly become shaped BY what they are watching, and they actually DO start to get stupider! (in general, that is...but not in every case)

Roddenberry was on the right track, but it took decades for the corrupt industry he was working for to catch up with his progressive thinking.

A very famous and extremely capable actress whose name I can't come up with right now for some reason said that Hollywood is run by a little club of "stupid, prejudiced old men", and that is why, for instance, there are so few good roles for women in Hollywood films. I expect she is right about that.

They do not create to enlighten. They do no create to educate. They do not create to inspire people toward a better life. They create strictly to turn a profit. That and only that. They figured they could make a better profit by putting the women on Star Trek in subservient roles and miniskirts.

I used to feel sorry for Nichelle Nichols who played Uhura, because about all she ever got to do was hail some aliens on some other starship....and..."I'm hailing them on all frequencies, Captain, but they aren't responding."

Stood up again! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 09 - 05:02 PM

And for that matter Quark's nephew ends up in charge of a space ship as a respected Star Fleet officer.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 09 - 06:06 PM

One of the reasons that, when my wife and I watch television, we usually watch our local PBS affiliate. They play lots of stuff from British television on things like "Masterpiece Theatre" (now, "Masterpiece Classic" with things like the complete works of Jane Austen, Dickens' dramatizations, etc.; "Masterpiece Mystery" with "Inspector Lynley" and such; and "Masterpiece Contemporary"), not to mention some good, intelligent and funny comedies ("As Time Goes By" with Judi Dench and Geoffery Palmer and "The Good Life" with Richard Briers and Felicity Kendall [voted as having the nicest butt in British telly]. They also run "Nova," other science programs, "Frontline"--generally television aimed at people who have considerably more brains that the average stalk of celery.

"I think if I ever have to open another hailing frequency, I'm afraid I'll run screaming!"
                                                                                                   --Nichele Nichols
Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 06:23 PM

LOL!!! Poor Nichelle...

We are blessed with a national public radio channel in Canada, the CBC...and it has always aired the more intelligent stuff that commercial radio simply can't be bothered with. Why? Because it's run as a public service, that's why. Same deal as PBS in the USA, but the CBC was set up from the start AS a government-supported and fully funded national radio station. It's a wonderful alternative to the many commercial radio stations and it is blessed by NOT having any advertising intruding on the programming.

That's one of the great merits of having a socialist media outlet in a democratic society that also includes plenty of capitalism. That's what I believe in: a healthy combination of the two.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 09 - 06:37 PM

None of which means that Star Trek wasn't pretty good much of the time (especially after Picard got into the captain's chair).

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 May 09 - 07:17 PM

Um, sorry, one point - "The utopia envisioned by the producers of Star Trek is one in which humans, having survived an apocalyptic war, have overcome racism and prejudice to live peacefully with each other and, with the advent of interstellar space flight, species from other worlds" is not the case, as in the Original Star Trek they had learned to overcome racism and prejudice and live peacefully with each other and so AVOIDED the apocalyptic war. It is only in The Next Generation that they say we had it, the war that is.

Just saw the movie (was afraid to open the thread before!) - 4 stars, I'd say!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 May 09 - 07:18 PM

Oh, and the Ferengi aren't jewish, they are the mutated Americans that have united under Bill Gates and formed a planetary empire of greed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 09 - 09:38 PM

Mmmm, well, Mrrzy, in several episodes of both TOS and TNG, there was mention of wars that took place in the late 20th century, or at some indefinite time shortly thereafter, such as the "genetic wars" (1990, in "Space Seed," with Khan and his shipload of genetically modified "superior humans") and I think Q sneered at Picard a few times about humans almost annihilating themselves with global wars.

But they weren't really all that consistent with their "future history."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 09 - 09:47 PM

Well, I just saw the story, and I'd give it five stars. My stepson worried about the inconsistencies, but I just enjoyed the movie.

I told him it's like the Bible, which (to my mind) is full of inconsistencies. Some people reject the Bible as fraudulent because it isn't absolutely consistent. Some dance around in circles trying to rationalize the inconsistencies and prove it's all true. I dont think either perspective is worthwhile.

With Star Trek, why not just watch the movie and enjoy it, and learn the lessons it has to teach us?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:25 AM

Bingo!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: BK Lick
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:49 AM

Roger Ebert's review is here. He didn't much like it (two and a half stars) and opened with:

""Star Trek' as a concept has voyaged far beyond science fiction and into the safe waters of space opera,
but that doesn't amaze me. The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions
of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action.
Like so many franchises, it's more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly
where no "Star Trek" has gone before.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:50 AM

Right, after TOS, they started saying that there had been an apocalyptic war. But in the ORIGINAL series, they had avoided that one, although they had had plenty of smaller ones, that didn't threaten the whole planet like the ones they talk about in TNG and later.

And the rule with ANY Star Trek is, no harshing on the plot! (That means no pointing out the gaping holes. Just wait for the next one to come along and either plug them, or give you new ones to harsh on {but not while watching, only while rehashing!})

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:51 AM

Are you allowed 5 stars? I thought the max was 4. If there are five available, I give it all 5.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:05 PM

Ebert's right really, this was about characters and not issues. The threat to be dealt with was an individual; there was not a real culture clash or anything, which would have made for deeper issues to be dealt with.

However, it was a fun introduction to the characters...

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:13 PM

The thing I loved about Rodenberry's original Star Trek was that it was about great ethical and philosophical and social issues, generally speaking, as Ebert said in his review. So, I may be a little disappointed with the new movie for not doing likewise, but we'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: astro
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:39 PM

Just a question regarding the Ferengi and Gene Rodenberry, I believe that they were introduced in Star Trek TNG which I believe came after his death. They were brought in by the new producers and creators.

I liked the new characters a lot. I thought that they were consistent with the previous actors that had those roles...I give it a good cheer...

Astro, live long and prosper (oops, is that really an autographed picture of Shatner as Cap. Kirk hanging there!)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 May 09 - 11:38 AM

Just saw it again (with the second of my twins). Still *****!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Dan Schatz
Date: 13 May 09 - 12:03 PM

Roddenberry was still around for the first few seasons of TNG, and very much involved until the last year or so of his life.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:09 PM

I think TNG was the apex of Rodenberry's philosophy being clearly expressed in the show, much moreso than the original Star Trek show, because Rodenberry's progressive ideas got far less cooperation from the studio heads in the 60's.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: MAG
Date: 14 May 09 - 08:48 AM

I'm scared to ask, Mrzzy, but how old are the twins now?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: astro
Date: 14 May 09 - 05:33 PM

Interesting Dan, I'll have to look at the first few seasons with this in mind...astro

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 May 09 - 09:25 PM

MAG - are you sitting down? Almost 14!! I don't believe it either.

They have watched all the Treks and totally by themselves both developed a fierce preference for The Original Series, really, I didn't even have to use the machine on wherever that "insane" asylum was! (See, I'm a trekkIE, that is, I like the show, not a trekkER, who would know the name of that planet! Tantalus V? Yikes!)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 May 09 - 09:28 PM

OK, confusing 2 things. Tantalus V was a penal colony, not an insane asylum, but it did have the machine to which I referred; the insane asylum one didn't have the machine. Whew. I feel better now.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 15 May 09 - 08:21 AM

Ref: posting 8th May - couldn't copy and paste the fragment - re comparing alien races to different races/nationalities..

I like to think that the different races 'Romulans', 'Klingons' reflected different societies throughout history. For example the similarities between Romulan Society and the Roman Empire (Senates, Slavery - Remans, the equivalent of an emporer), and surely the name can't be a coincidence. I haven't got my head round the other parallel societies yet...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 09 - 10:57 AM

The Klingons seem a lot like the Samurai warriors of feudal Japan to me...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Azizi
Date: 18 May 09 - 12:35 PM

More Spoiler Alert comments re the new Star Trek movie. I'm posting excerpts from this article because it augments those that I posted earlier about Uhuru and the role/s of race in the Star Trek series.

BACK TO THE FUTURE: THE RACIALICIOUS REVIEW OF STAR TREK
By Special Correspondent Arturo R. García

..."No, the new Star Trek (iTrek, for short) is not anything like the original series. That's the whole damn point, one that's acknowledged early on. This is a different timeline – doesn't mean prior canon doesn't count; just that the game is different from here on out.

And even then, this story and this ensemble nailed the most important aspect of any Trek movie – the relationships between the Enterprise's core group – while at the same time redefining them. In short: Uhura hooking up with Spock? Good. Uhura hooking up with Spock over Kirk? Great!

Speaking of Kirk, he's at the center of the biggest difference between iTrek and 8-Track Trek: Chris Pine's version is decidedly not the Alpha Dog here. In this instance, JTK is more like a wolf in the old Kipling poem: without the pack around him, he's effectively useless. He needs Pike to motivate him; he needs Uhura to confirm he's not talking out of his ass; he needs Sulu to save said ass on Nero's mining platform; and he needs both Spocks and Scotty in order to save the day. Everybody gets to shine, and the ensemble is so much the stronger for it."...

[Character Scorecard]

Uhura: No character benefited more from both the reboot and the re-vamp of their origin. Here Zoe Saldana got to fill Nichelle Nichols' roles and give us not just a determined, successful cadet, but one who brought a real skill-set to the table...

Sulu: Again, Kirk only survives the fight atop the first drilling platform because of young Hikaru – in a lesser movie, Sulu's "fencing" confession would have been a set-up to make him look inept in actual combat. We got quite the opposite here...

Spock: And now we come to the Big Other. The nature of Spock's heritage gets addressed early on, and it was a little ham-handed to see Vulcans being so openly prejudicial for two reasons:
1.Would Logic not show racism to be … well, illogical?
2.We never saw him encounter racism from anybody in Starfleet – weird to think of that as "wrong," but we'll talk more about Starfleet in a bit...

Starfleet: Ok, so all of the power players were men. This is nothing new, unfortunately. (According to Memory Alpha, of the admirals seen in prior canon, most were men, only four were POC, and the only female was Vulcan. Six women, including Voyager's Kathryn Janeway, were Rear or Vice Admirals.) But the shots of extraterrestrials and POC serving together, without anybody looking at anybody else as weird – Kirk was a misfit because he's just that big of a clueless putz – was encouraging in the sense that, rather than the audience getting the "lesson" of tolerance handed down as a plot point, we got to see it in action. Let's hope for some more active examples as the series continues. One more note: the doomed Capt. Robau of the Kelvin was played by Faran Tahir, an Angeleno of Pakistani descent."


http://www.racialicious.com/2009/05/12/back-to-the-future-the-racialicious-review-of-star-trek/#more-2439

-snip-

"POC" is a widely used (in Black blogging) abbreviation for "People of Color". "People of color" means people of all races & ethnicities except White people.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Azizi
Date: 18 May 09 - 12:48 PM

Here are 3 out of 54 reader comments that were posted by readers of Arturo R Garcia's article "Back To The Future: The Racialicious Review of Start Trek" [IMO "54"reader comments appears to par with articles on that blog which engender a lot of comments]


JC wrote:

*** Spoiler Alert ***

I loved this movie. It could be better, and it could do without some of the glaring plot holes (if you can teleport to a moving starship in warp speed light years away - do you even need starships anymore?) , but it has become the first movie I'd want repeat viewing since the LOTR Trilogy.

I loved Sulu's ass-kicking even though he could be developed further (hope for the sequal!); I thought Uhura was tastefully portrayed as a smart, powerful women who has strong influence over, well, everything. Notice how she got Spock, a everything-by-the-rules Vulcan, to assign her to the Enterprise? Yeah they're a couple but he's a VULCAN for crying out loud. I do enjoy the romance though - I've always thought from the original series that the Vulcans were symbolic of Asians in the ST universe (and the Klingons were the Russians), so I've always though of Spock as an Psudo-Asian anyway. I also thought the movie is more about Spock than Kirk too.

They could add more diversity to the crew, but I suppose it would be too much of a change to add another POC into the main cast. But PoC were really everywhere in this movie - I mean if you look at the ceremony scenes where the entire Academy was presence, you can see that whites is not the majority. I also liked that the Asian paramedic early in the movie got a line or two. I was half expecting him to die.

I was a little disappointed that they kept mentioning George Kirk as the hero when the original captain of the Kelvin was just as heroic as Kirk and later Captain Pike. Maybe they did but I sure missed it. I AM glad he's of middle-eastern origin though… first casualty of the 9/11 of the 22nd Century.

I think JJ Abrams is sensitive to the issue of racial imbalance in Hollywood casting, and I get the feeling that he's doing his best to address the situation. He still has to get the movie green-lighted so Star Trek and Lost still have to feature whites has main characters - but he's really sneaking them PoC in there in non-stereotypical roles. I wish there are more of him in Hollywood.

Posted 12 May 2009 at 9:32 pm ¶

**
napthia9 wrote:

..."Before I saw the movie, I was worried that Uhura was mostly going to be eye candy... Of all the cadets, she seemed the most prepared, mature and professional. Even going after Spock seemed like the sort of calculated risk that accurately evaluated the impact it'd have on their professional lives. (Also, their scenes were great! I don't see Uhura/Spock in the original series, but movieverse? Wow!) While I also want to see more female characters being physically strong and powerful, a la Ripley & Vasquez in Aliens, Uhura's non-physical strength was great"...
Posted 15 May 2009 at 3:47 am

**
allheavens wrote:
.."this film is more Spock's journey than Kirk's. Spock as not yet acquire the poise of Spock Prime and Zachary Quinto invests Spock with a chilly, smoldering sex appeal that simmers just beneath the surface. Spock is beset by emotion and all its complexities. Maybe now Spock can finally be the winner of the "cool kids" sweepstakes because he is no longer just the emotional juxtaposition to Kirk's swaggering hero"...
Posted 15 May 2009 at 12:29 pm

http://www.racialicious.com/2009/05/12/back-to-the-future-the-racialicious-review-of-star-trek/#comments ¶

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Peter T.
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:47 PM

I saw the movie last night, and thought it was great. Certainly the best of the movie versions (but then they were all hopeless smoking turds).

But I have to underscore, reading these remarks, that the whole Star Trek universe is hopelessly racist and stereotyped. It promotes the American view of the world, immortalized before Star Trek in those Superman comics where everyone in the United Nations is white except their faces are coloured and they wear their national dress. Or, in a similar vein, the way American tourists abroad, not speaking the local language, respond by speaking English louder. The idea is that behind the ridiculous language these people babble away in, behind that is really English. You can hear the exact same racism in 99% of the debates over Iraq and Afghanistan. The same complete blindness to the realities of other cultures, in spite of (or because of) the universalist American rhetoric. The same is true for Star Trek.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: robomatic
Date: 18 May 09 - 10:51 PM

There are so many good sub-threads in this thread that I'll add about 8 cents (4 sets of 2):

I think Ebert's distinction that the latest Star Trek movie represents good ol' fashioned Space Opera (as opposed to the world of ideas that TOS strived for) is right on. JJ Abrams was out to develop a prequel setting up the main characters, he did this through excellent casting and a plot that never stood still, barely cohered, through pretty much everything at the screen from parallel worlds to time travel, and didn't have a moral thought in its head. It was for me entertainment that moved quickly through the ears without leaving much there to stick. Clearly the main characters were chosen for their resemblance to TOS characters, and were encouranged to speedily adopt the speech pathologies of the timeless dialog of sci-fi in the sixties.

I enjoyed it for what it was and I don't think it put on airs of being much more than that.

JJ Abrams is an interesting character. He is capable of originality, as in "Cloverfield" which I loved, and he is capable of some pretty blatant re-framing of other folks' ideas, as in the television show "Fringe" being an attempt to warm over "X-Files", (and not fully successful).

As for racism, TOS was an obvious attempt to transcend both racism and nationalism. The episode about the two races with coloring mismatched left-for-right ready to fight to the death was an attempt to show the stupidity of racism and its persistence in spite of the stupidity. There was an episode where one of the most brilliant scientists of the age introduced robotic control to the Starship Enterprise which put the crew in fear of being replaced by machines. The brilliant scientist was played by a black actor. In another episode Lincoln is revived for some reason and he addresses Uhura as a 'negress' at which there was a brief discussion about words no longer in use.

I preferred STNG for the effects, sophisticated story lines, and of course, Jean-Luc! I also liked DS9 for its darker themes and variety of characters, Ferenghi included, and of course, Sisko.

In the new movie I enjoyed the Chekhov character exchanging 'Vs' for 'Ws' just the way the original Chekhov character does (and the OPPOSITE of what real Russians do!).

As for alien depictions of 'Jews', everyone who KNOWS TOS knows that its the Vulcans who are the Jews. Star Trek NG had an alien race who made commerce their chief raison d'etre. They have characteristics that have been aimed at Jews but they are not depicted as Jews in any other sense. Therefore, saying that the Ferenghi are 'Jews' is more a judgement on the person who makes the association, less a perception of Ferenghi as Jews. If you yourself associate Jews as people dominated by the acquisition of wealth, then you will associate Jews with Ferenghi.

In actuality, the Ferenghi represent the greed inherent in all us humans. And as mentioned by McGrath, Quark's nephew went against type and enrolled in Starfleet thus demonstrating that great Trek theme that no one is excluded from redemption (though all his relatives thought he was nuts).


Now, if you want to go after some real depictions of aliens with Jews, you have to exonerate Star Trek and go over to Star Wars. Star Wars Episode I the Phantom Menace had two, no, three, pretty nasty human race associations. The first, as everybody knows, is that horrible character Jar Jar Binks, who was interchangeable with early movie depictions of persons of various colors as cheerful brainless ones, (not to mention a downright offense to Gungans everywhere, but presumably they're too cheerfully inane to register the insult). Then there were the nasty ambassadors who appeared early in the flick in the snoozy delegation scenes to be downright Nipponese stand-ins of the sort that killed Jimmy Cagney in "Blood On The Sun". And finally we have Watto, the fat, elephantine nosed junk shop slave-owning cheapskate with an accent that sounded like jackie mason with a headcold. There's your sci-fi nazi scapejew!

Getting back to JJ's Star Trek. I think it is a valid introduction of the 'next generation' of young moviegoers to the characters if not the ideas of the Roddenberry universe. And the effects were head and shoulders above those of any other ST movie.

Two and three quarter stars.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:03 PM

Can anyone explain why Capt. Christopher Pike who had the nasty bug dropped into his mouth to make him talk (remember, it was supposed to attach itself to his brain stem and render him at the Romulans' mercy?)
appeared to be perfectly normal when rescued by Kirk?
He was able to draw Kirk's phaser and shoot the Romulan baddie during the rescue.

Either they're not making those bugs like they used to, or it should have been put in his ear á la Chekhov in Wrath of Khan.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:22 PM

They might be saving Captain Pike's "problem" for the next movie.

Well, I saw it today and it's GREAT!!! Way better than I'd ever have expected. Matter of fact, it's almost perfect.

Peter T, you're quite right about the blatant (and largely unaware) perpetuation of the American-centric view of the world (and life) that is embodied in the very fabric of Star Trek...hell, the ships are labelled "USS" whatever...how likely is that???

But it's virtually inevitable it would be that way, because the series was invented and made IN the USA. Most movies we watch are made in the USA and they all repeat the old myths. So what else is new? The USA is a country that sees itself as the center of the Universe, the one place on planet Earth that really matters, the place that is the home of liberty, freedom, technology, justice, government, and God. That won't change until some other nation on this planet becomes a much greater military and political power than the USA...and that will happen...but not for a little while yet.

In the meantime, the American myth will, like Celine Dionne in the Titanic song, go on and on...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Peter T.
Date: 19 May 09 - 10:29 AM

The unbelievable Jewish and black stereotyping in Star Wars Episode I was so blatant that I sat openmouthed throughout. The only consolation was that the two white lovers were so wooden and boring and bland that they gave white people everywhere a bad name too.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 09 - 10:36 AM

That was just a plain lousy movie, period. Poor script. Bad acting. Cliched thinking throughout.

Look at the exaggerated "Black" stereotypes we've been bombarded with for the past 40 or 50 years on TV...until a lot of Black people actually started imitating them! It's downright embarrassing, but what can you do?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 May 09 - 12:05 PM

I can' think of anybody either jewish or black in Star Wars...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 May 09 - 06:29 PM

How could there be possibly be any Jewish people in the Star Wars Universe? It's all happening "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away". There aren't any Jews there. There aren't any Christians, or Moslems or Hindus or Buddhists.

As for colour I seem to have seen "people" of all colours in the films - green, purple, blue, black and pink.
................................

"The unbelievable Jewish and black stereotyping in Star Wars Episode One" - since the characters Peter T is referring are not humans, let alone   Jewish or black, and the "stereotypes" would not be accurate representations of Jewish or Black humans, where does the offence actually lie?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Azizi
Date: 20 May 09 - 08:08 PM

There is a great deal of damage to the psyche and self-esteem of people of color (POC) that is caused by the cumulative effects of
1. having few positive characters in movies/television programs who resemble us
2. having characters who resemble us look who portray weak or negative
3. in contrast to images of POC, having movie/television characters of White folks being heroic, attractive, intelligent, leaders

Overtime, what do you think the messages that these movies. televisions shows, books teach and reinforce?

As to what can be done about this:
1. raise awareness
2. advocate for change
3. protest
4. boycott
5. use the financial resources of POC and those White people who support the goals of more culturally competent mass media to create such media offerings

**

Here's an example of a website that raises awareness about "yellowface", the "practice
the practice of applying prosthetics or paint to simulate a crude idea of what "Asians" look like [and]is non-Asian bodies (usually white) controlling what it means to be Asian on screen and stage, particularly in lead/major roles.
http://vejiicakes.livejournal.com/254810.html

Yellow (and brown)-face: A History in Pictures

Jan. 29th, 2009 at 6:07 PM

"Yellowface, at its core, is not only tied to blackface and the portrayal of African Americans on the stage by whites in the nineteenth century, the term yellowface appears as early as the 1950s to describe the continuation in film of having white actors playing major Asian and Asian American roles and the grouping together of all makeup technologies used to make one look "Asian." Thanks to the power of film executives in casting, Asian and Asian Americans who had decades of theatrical experience in vaudeville were unable to find work or were relegated to stereotypical roles--laundrymen, prostitutes, or servants."
- Krystyn R. Moon
Yellowface: Creating the Chinese in American Popular Music and Performance, 1850-1920s (page 164)


**

Here's an example of a website that is protesting an upcoming movie "The Avatar-The Last Airbender"
http://racebending.com/faq.php#movie

This upcoming movie is based on" an Emmy award-winning American animated television series that aired on Nickelodeon... Avatar is set in an Asian-influenced world, and drew on elements from East Asian, South Asian, Inuit and Western culture, making it a mixture of what were previously traditionally separate categories of anime and US domestic cartoons."
-snip-

The upcoming movie changes the concept of a heroic Asian based world to make that world populated by White people. After vigorous protests about that the four stars of the show were White, the producers replaced one White actor with an Asian actor. Unfortunately, the character that actor portrays is the villain.

The fans of this show were angry
" Because the world is supposed to be Asian-based...but Hollywood has deemed that only white actors can populate it.

Because Nation that was clearly Inuit-based are now white-washed as Caucasians

Because according to the actors and creators of the movie, ethnicity is just a white person with a tan and some make-up.

Because it is cultural appropriation (ie, Market research tells us that Asian things are cool! Just not the actual Asian people)

Because this is a children's film and children are being shown that only white heroes can exist in a fantasy world.

-snip-

Is the cumulative effect of media products like this harmful to people of color and, in different ways, to White people? Hell yes.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 May 09 - 01:54 PM

Stereotypes can be in the mind of the beholder, too; I recall the difference in reactions to the fact that in The Passion, Mel Gibson had Judas bargain for his info, ending up at 30 pieces of silver but but not starting there. I took that to be completely normal behavior, and a good friend of mine took it to be an anti-jewish stereotype...I was just wondering what in the world was the "unbelievable Jewish and black stereotyping in Star Wars Episode I" that so astounded Peter T. I also thought of JarJar as being a yokel stereotype, not a black one, as I was later informed I should be outraged about.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:05 PM

People always find exactly what they're looking for, don't they? This is how the Inquisition was able to find millions of supposed "witches" and "heretics" to burn among the population they terrorized and murdered.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Elijah Browning
Date: 21 May 09 - 03:23 PM

"I have a sad story to tell you.
It may hurt your feelings a bit.
Last night when I walked into my bathroom,
I stepped in a big pile of ...

Shaving cream, be nice and clean.
Shave everyday and you'll always look keen."
-Benny Bell

Where does the prejudice lie? A character has a tendency to hold monetary gain as a personal ethic, and we assume that this is a bigoted reference to Jews. I am not saying it is definitively not, but our sensitivity projects as much as reflects. I have big ears and a big nose. An inheritance from the French Canadian in me. My Jewish bloodline had more Aryan features than my F.C. forefathers. Yet when I tell people I have Jewish blood in me..."ah, yes, I can see it..."

It isn't that it isn't there, but I would contend that prejudice bigotry and racism exists as much in our expectations as in actuality. And also that this expectation immediately erects walls where communication might have been and by this can create prejudice where none existed originally.

The only two things in the human condition that do not discriminate are prejudice and love. Neither is bound to a particular subset of humanity. Perhaps if we stop asking, "where is your bigotry?" and start asking, "where is mine?" we might be able to stop beating each other into the ground and begin lifting each other into the stars. This, I believe, is the most important message in Mr. Roddenberry's legacy.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 May 09 - 05:36 PM

I saw the new film yesterday. Too much computer game style whiz-bang stuff for my tastes, horribly confused plot - and the Kirk character was a real pain throughout. At one point (spoiler comiig up) Spock arranges to have him thrown off the Enterprise into deep space, and I fully sympathised. And also felt it was definitely the logical thing to do.

Spectacular to look at, but for my money almost the least satisfactory of the Star Trek films. Carrying on the tradition that it's the odd numbered films that are OK while the even numbered ones never really measure up.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 09 - 06:41 PM

"Perhaps if we stop asking, "where is your bigotry?" and start asking, "where is mine?" we might be able to stop beating each other into the ground and begin lifting each other into the stars."

Beautifully said, Elijah Browning! Bravo.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: robomatic
Date: 21 May 09 - 08:45 PM

For those asking inanely where's the race characterization in Star Wars, you didn't read the thread very thoroughly. See my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Star Trek- movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 May 09 - 09:13 PM

The gross toe-curling thingies that sought "peaceful coexistence" in TNG went in the mouth, and then out again, so I just assumed when they had what they needed it left. I don't think those were the same species that got Chekov in the ear...