“Star Trek 4” Rumored to Feature Female Villain, New Female Hero

"Star Trek has always been SJW"... yeah, but they were sane back then. If you'd show the original Star Trek creators what the SJW movement looked like today (a whole street of pudgy, fully tatted RuPaul wanna-bes wearing rainbow wigs and Fifth Element bikinis), they'd question the existence of God.
 
picard_ashamed.jpg

Who are these trolls trying to create SJW battle zones everywhere? Somebody used the same tactics to try and start shit over Into Darkness for, ironically, having a sexist underwear scene (among other odd criticisms), presumably to drag down profits and attack the director (Abrams, in that case). We've seen similar social media campaigns against other movies that have been more or less successful, the notable example being Star Wars: TLJ.
 
Last edited:
I'm stuck on both sides of this conversation.

Someone else mentioned it first, but I like the Jessica Jones series too, and it's not because she's attractive, it's because she's a real character. I liked Wonder Woman, and I had a personal SJW moment during the movie because I thought it was dumb that Chris Pine flew off to ultimate martyrdom.

I liked Terminator 2 - Sarah Connor became a different character, and I bought it, and I liked it.

There was a discussion earlier in the thread about Scarlett Johansson, and I sort of understand both sides, but I think the deeper point is that sometimes when Hollywood casts females in action movies there are moments when the actresses don't move correctly. It's like their reflexes are slow, or soft, or the physics aren't right, or they are afraid of being bruised, or ... something. Saying that makes it seem like I just said that women can't be action heroes, and it also sounds like I just asked Hollywood to go to the kitchen and make me a sandwich, but it's also true. And while I realize that much of the action part of any actor or actresses portrayal is mostly stuntmen and CGI, in all the little bits where it shows Scarlett Johansson's portrayal of Black Widow is excellent - I completely buy into her character. She is solid, and I'm ready for a Black Widow standalone movie.

How about Charlize Theron in Atomic Blonde? That movie was all sex and violence, is it misogyny or feminism?

Here's a question that will cause a fight the next time you're drinking wine with a mixed crowd - was the original Kick-Ass misogyny or feminism? If the argument doesn't start right away, drop an, [NSFW] "Ok, c**ts, let's see what you can do now?" [/NSFW] into the conversation.


P.S. Alien/Aliens was the turning point for females in a leading action role. For my generation, anyway.
 
It is cringe worthy virtue signaling that is causing the backlash. The fact that paramount is pushing this "First X in Y role" bullcrap is what is making this blip on everyone's SJW agenda warning system.

Every time a studio virtue signals this hard, they have done so at the cost of a coherent story/plot and made a garbage movie.

All these SJW white knights go for the nihilistic arguement that it is just women hating men rather then the fact that pandering doesn't make up for bad scripts or acting.

The Expanse just does it without the need to advertise the genitalia, skin color, or sexual preference of its cast and in large no one cares about these things because it is well written, directed, and acted.

So, in conclusion... Stop with the virtual signaling and let the movie stand on it's own merits. If your movie sucks, don't count on the make up of the cast or characters to save it.
 
I have no problem with Star Trek commenting on social issues of the day.. the problem is that these turds are going out of their way to make sure everyone knows that they are doing [insert something no one wants here]. TOS had some very compelling story lines that focused on equality for white black men women etc...
 
MrDeaf said:
I really don't understand this take on how or why people think SJW-ism is ruining muh movies and TV series.
If you don't like it, then you are clearly not the targeted audience.

And since major titles, like Star Trek, are usually targeted to a very broad audience, if it sells lots of tickets, then that would mean the general audience liked it.
However, if it didn't sell very well, then pat yourself on the back for spotting Hollywood trying to be Hollywood. (either that, or the audience got burnt out on the content. e.g. Han Solo)
Click to expand...
You really think Solo was content burn out.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
550.jpg

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
 
Spaceninja said:
Since they have to announce it and make a big deal about it, it's a SJW movie. It will also flop because it won't appeal to the base audience. If they want to make a statement, make the bad guy a dude and have the woman kick his ass, then they can at least run it on Lifetime later.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is the TNG version of the reboot?
 
nilepez said:
OK you keep telling yourself that, but the misogynists of [H] always prejudge stories based on casting, not story. I guess that also includes the racists of [h] who threw a fucking fit when the Finn character was <gasp> black. It was horrible SJW BS, despite the fact that outside of a few fanboys nobody had heard of the character and from what I've read he was a minor character at that.

Hell, they whined about Solo being SJW and I saw the movie. It barely had any message at all, beyond "here's a fun movie about young Han Solo," but oh the misogynists were outraged about this atrocity of a movie that they never saw because it has GIRLS. Oh the horror.
Click to expand...

Sonicks said:
Adding women as any focus of a conversation triggers weak men’s hatred of women that itself stems from a perceived injustice that women have done to them.

Guess what weak misogynists? Not all women will like you. Rejection is not the fault of the gender but yourself alone. Deal with it like a man and move on to th next woman.
Click to expand...

WTF are you two smoking? Must be pretty strong.

I have zero problem with women actors/directors. I rolled my eyes when they cried that scarlett johansson couldn't play a trans character. WTF is wrong with you people? Did any trans actors even audition for the part? Can they act half as good as her? Guess what people it doesnt matter that she isnt trans, its fucking fiction!

You know what ruins a good movie/story? Making something just to appease the SJWs. Make the damn movie with the story you want to tell. If thats a bunch of chicks fighting an evil empire with help from a few hard to control dudes that fuck everything up for you THEN DO THAT. Do not take an existing story and SJW it up by changing key points to "get your message across" or you will lose your audience.

That being said...its their movie. they can fuck it up anyway they want. The last few ST movies have been pretty crappy and it has nothing to do with any SJW aspects, its all just been shit writing. Dont get me started on how shitty SW has been...
 
My take on SJW redo's of movies is the same whether it's gender-bender or race-bending. If you take a successful franchise or story and simply change a character to female (or black or other) simply for the sake of doing it, I will not respect it or enjoy it as much as an original new and good story with a female (or PoC) lead character.

Hollywood misses the point and it has been proven time and again but apparently they have moved so far left of center, that they refuse to accept it. Even if the $$$ numbers (or lack thereof) show it.
 
I think the hard part for trek now is finding new territory or more importantly higher quality writing. All of the previous series/movies have explored to some extent most of the social issues we experience commonly now. Back then it was a brave new stance. Now many are desensitized due to the same items being headlines, major news stories, or all over social.

SJW, maybe but also remember Gene cast his wife as second in command but the network made him recast. He then had to fight just to keep Spock as he designed. After that he refused to back down and threatened to quit any number of times for each new limit he reached for. Even the famous kiss was shot with multiple versions so the execs didn't really know which one would be actually aired since it was rumored he had the edit changed right before broadcast.

Back then trek didn't necessarily align with mass media because it dared to be different. Problem is now, times have caught up. Things may not be equal but these problems are now in the open. I believe trek needs to move beyond exposing social issues and aligning with any particular political/social agenda and actually work on quality story that all can enjoy. Female, male, sex orientation, alien, none of it is new anymore. What has been lost are movies that all can enjoy and watch over and over and people can be excited to tell each other about.
 
Nobody wants a lecture. An indirect lecture via showing some fantasy utopian end state of your politics when mixed with bad writing and vindictive mistreatment of characters that had their day is not going to be well received either.

Criticism is not trolling or an attack. But promoting something for reasons other than genuine like is shilling. I hope some of the try-hards here are getting some of the Lucasfilm shill coin they've been dropping.
 
SecretStash said:
So having sexy females as leads don't count for SJW points?
Click to expand...
Nope, if anything that's an even bigger negative. They call that objectifying.

Draax said:
[H] never disapoints with the SJW fear mongering. Sad really.
Click to expand...
If SJW's didn't make an issue out of nothing, we wouldn't be having this problem. People forget that Star Trek Voyager had a female captain with a lot of strong female character roles and nobody gave a shit cause it was well done. Then we had Ghostbusters and saw that good writing and acting took a back seat for female empowerment. We saw this in recent Star Wars films as well. Even the Chinese are noticing this and they now call it the "white left", because it's painfully obvious when the industry panders.

We had Star Trek Voyager and Xena Warrior Princess long before this SJW nonsense became a thing and nobody gave a shit. Anyone cared that Xena popped a dagger out of her boob? Today she'd be flat as a man, and totally covered up cause SJW'ing. Actually, she'd be black too cause SJW'ing.

sPFOP72.gif
 
SJ Clarkson wears problem glasses. Doesn't bode well. Looks a lot like Laurie Penny, actually.
upload_2018-7-16_9-23-11.png
 
DukenukemX said:
Actually, she'd be black too cause SJW'ing.
Click to expand...

And the point that many here are making is that Star Trek has ALWAYS done this sort of thing, that's just what it is. A black female officer in the service? The greatest computer scientist of his time as cast as a black man. Hell that's just about as much SJW 50+ plus years ago as it is today.
 
heatlesssun said:
And the point that many here are making is that Star Trek has ALWAYS done this sort of thing, that's just what it is. A black female officer in the service? The greatest computer scientist of his time as cast as a black man. Hell that's just about as much SJW 50+ plus years ago as it is today.
Click to expand...
You all are missing the point. Back then it just was despite the people who saw it and got bent out of shape about it. Someone posted earlier about the squabbles Gene had making the original series. The difference now is they are shoving the fact that they're going to have female this and that in the movie like it's something revolutionary and something to be excited about. Most of us would not care if companies didn't make a big press event out of the race and gender of their cast and crew.
 
nilepez said:
OK you keep telling yourself that, but the misogynists of [H] always prejudge stories based on casting, not story. I guess that also includes the racists of [h] who threw a fucking fit when the Finn character was <gasp> black. It was horrible SJW BS, despite the fact that outside of a few fanboys nobody had heard of the character and from what I've read he was a minor character at that.

Hell, they whined about Solo being SJW and I saw the movie. It barely had any message at all, beyond "here's a fun movie about young Han Solo," but oh the misogynists were outraged about this atrocity of a movie that they never saw because it has GIRLS. Oh the horror.
Click to expand...

Oh look. Another Overwoke - Underinformed SJW witchunter who thinks that by pointing his finger and labeling others as "Racists" and "Misogynists" he's superior to them. Make no mistake about it, it has nothing to do with doing what's right, this is an exercise in ego boosting. Yeah, you're like the Rosa Parks of the internet, so brave.
 
Armenius said:
You all are missing the point. Back then it just was despite the people who saw it and got bent out of shape about it. Someone posted earlier about the squabbles Gene had making the original series. The difference now is they are shoving the fact that they're going to have female this and that in the movie like it's something revolutionary and something to be excited about. Most of us would not care if companies didn't make a big press event out of the race and gender of their cast and crew.
Click to expand...

No has to shove the first female director of a Star Trek movie, that's something that's going to get noticed and talked about.
 
heatlesssun said:
Not really sure where the "social justice" criticisms of Star Trek come from, there's nothing new about Star Trek and liberal social commentary and character portrayals, that's always been a part of the Star Trek universe.
Click to expand...

Nobody is complaining about the SJ aspect of Star Trek they are complaining about the Ws.

A SJW does the same as their forefathers did and then jumps up and down screaming "Look what I did! Look what I did! I'm so special! Give me a medal!"

When someone tells the SJW " You ain't special, shut up "

The SJW can't comprehend that their incredible self is being criticized so they resort to hiding behind a cause and responding with "You hate Black Homosexual Irish Jews!".

It's the Ws that are being criticized.
 
The SJWs ruined Star Wars.....it was only a matter of time. Forget the lore, cannon, established universe, just hire a bunch of 23 year old trans gender women who have never read a single book to write your script. Result.....The Last Jedi and Han Soylo.
 
So they're copying Star Wars? The hero is the chick with the force and the villain is the chick producing it. :sneaky:
 
lostin3d said:
I think the hard part for trek now is finding new territory or more importantly higher quality writing. All of the previous series/movies have explored to some extent most of the social issues we experience commonly now. Back then it was a brave new stance. Now many are desensitized due to the same items being headlines, major news stories, or all over social.

SJW, maybe but also remember Gene cast his wife as second in command but the network made him recast. He then had to fight just to keep Spock as he designed. After that he refused to back down and threatened to quit any number of times for each new limit he reached for. Even the famous kiss was shot with multiple versions so the execs didn't really know which one would be actually aired since it was rumored he had the edit changed right before broadcast.

Back then trek didn't necessarily align with mass media because it dared to be different. Problem is now, times have caught up. Things may not be equal but these problems are now in the open. I believe trek needs to move beyond exposing social issues and aligning with any particular political/social agenda and actually work on quality story that all can enjoy. Female, male, sex orientation, alien, none of it is new anymore. What has been lost are movies that all can enjoy and watch over and over and people can be excited to tell each other about.
Click to expand...

She was his mistress at the time, not his wife! ;)
 
Jtal said:
Nobody is complaining about the SJ aspect of Star Trek they are complaining about the Ws.

A SJW does the same as their forefathers did and then jumps up and down screaming "Look what I did! Look what I did! I'm so special! Give me a medal!"

When someone tells the SJW " You ain't special, shut up "

The SJW can't comprehend that their incredible self is being criticized so they resort to hiding behind a cause and responding with "You hate Black Homosexual Irish Jews!".

It's the Ws that are being criticized.
Click to expand...

I just don't see any difference between these SJW criticisms of Star Trek today and the same kinds of criticisms and discomfort and stereotype smashing when it launched 50+ years ago. A starship with a crew that wasn't all white and male and even a Vulcan-human hybrid extraterrestrial with non-whites often cast in important guest roles like Dr. Richard Daystrom, the Father of Federation computer tech.
 
heatlesssun said:
And the point that many here are making is that Star Trek has ALWAYS done this sort of thing, that's just what it is. A black female officer in the service? The greatest computer scientist of his time as cast as a black man. Hell that's just about as much SJW 50+ plus years ago as it is today.
Click to expand...
What I mean by black in that they took a previous white character and turned them black. Not making a new character black.
 
singe_101 said:
They know Mad Max better than George Miller and Margaret Sixel.
Click to expand...

A clear misunderstanding of the 'Culture' part of Pop-Culture.


heatlesssun said:
I just don't see any difference between these SJW criticisms of Star Trek today and the same kinds of criticisms and discomfort and stereotype smashing when it launched 50+ years ago. A starship with a crew that wasn't all white and male and even a Vulcan-human hybrid extraterrestrial with non-whites often cast in important guest roles like Dr. Richard Daystrom, the Father of Federation computer tech.
Click to expand...

Lest we all all forget Star Trek had the first ever interracial kiss on television. Star Trek has always been about pushing social boundaries and issues. The TV series would tackle them in-depth, and the movies were more flashy and action oriented, but would still have some sort of feel good social commentary (at leas the older movies, Abrams movies are 99% explosion and alien boob, but still enjoyable)
 
I've have always said that Star Trek needs more Action and Tits. I will hold off any judgement on it being SJW trash until after I see the finished product. You people need to lay off the anti-SJW virtue-signalling and whining. Give them a chance to make something good. If they make garbage the Box Office will reflect that. You people on the right are needlessly injecting politics into this.

Also, Hollywood is a bunch of Commies.
 
Directed by a woman, huh? JJ Abrams finally chopped off his own dick to spite himself?
 
DukenukemX said:
What I mean by black in that they took a previous white character and turned them black. Not making a new character black.
Click to expand...

At its core, Star Trek is a LIBERAL utopian vision of the future. That's what it's always been and it's always been upfront about it. Complaining about Star Trek being too SJW is like complaining that the sky is too blue.
 
The goal to making a good Pro/Ant-gonist is to make them believable. Flawed, broken, driven, crazy, insane, likeable give the character depth and show what they've done to earn that role of being OverLord of Whatever. I don't care if it's a man, woman, transLGTBBQ+ in that role, make the person's backstory believable and your audience won't give 2 shits about what they are. When you make the character without flaws, perfect, unsassaiable, un touched with no back story to fill in you get the audience going "Who the hell...How the hell....But why did.." etc. They become TOO GOOD and that's what the SJW's don't understand about the backlash they are getting in regards to movies with perfect Mary Sue Blue Hair TransBinaried FaeKin: they aren't "Real"

Let's flip this around a bit shall we: Majority of People love Marvel movies, they make a shit ton of money, they bring in characters that have flaws, back story, humor, and loss. No one, not even Captain America, is perfect by any stretch of the means. Marvel want's to bring in more people and change up the team a bit, how to do that without alienating the fan base: Make the Transition be a struggle and earned.

"How would you do that though with someone like Thor? He's a white dude, you can't just slap a black female in that role and say 'Here she is Thor!" You are correct the audience would revolt in droves and everyone would be staying away from that flick.

Let's go back to a concept of Earned Power: in order to have Power one must earn it, be given it by others, or take it from those that have it. Having Thor give the hammer over to someone just won't fly, there's nothing gained there. Thor could be defeated in battle and someone takes it from that way, that shows conflict which is good for a story. The last is Earning the Hammer and ergo the Power.

Based off of Thor Ragnarok you have the Valkyries who were modern day warriors who protected the throne, we have the ideal candidate in a progressive's mind in Valkyrie (black, female, strong) and cast with a believable role and backstory in the previous movie. The groundwork has been laid for her to earn more power and take on a bigger role in Asgard but she needs to earn the role of Thor by overcoming adversary, taking the audience on a ride to see how she struggles with overcoming tasks, build her story and her 3 act (initial rise, fall, conclusion) progression to where at the end she has finally taken over as Thor with some epic struggle that she nearly died, lost everything, sacrificed herself, etc. to take on the role. Show the audience that this isn't something that you get because you are a certain color, class, gender, etc. Show that it doesn't matter what you are that it takes a certain PERSON to take on this role and it was EARNED and the audience will accept her as the new Thor even though she is the polar opposite physically she has been shown to have the correct inner cornerstones of what makes Thor...Thor (courage, righteousness, valor, humor, and self-sacrifice).


SJW's want their hero's to be perfect, to be ideal, to never have flaws and to overcome adversity because they are Different. This concept does NOT work because the audience can only suspend so much disbelief before their mind tips over and goes "Fuck that, no way." This is a societal trait that is ingrained into Western Society that being too perfect is not "real". Make a character have backstory that is believable and no one will care if they are a asian transexual space wombat.
 
Bigdady92 said:
SJW's want their hero's to be perfect, to be ideal, to never have flaws and to overcome adversity because they are Different.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not really seeing that, at least from my perspective. Certainly in the Kelvin movies, Kirk, Spock and McCoy are no more perfect than in the TOS, in fact I think Kirk and Spock brood WAY too much in the new movies. Though I guess Spock has something a reason to be moody given the destruction of Vulcan, which I thought was stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top