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

heatlesssun said:
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.
Click to expand...
And people don't want it to happen in the next movie, which is the point. No one claimed that the cast of the past 3 ST movies was a bunch of Mary Sues.
 
katanaD said:
how? he died, or are we getting yet another alternative timeline.
Click to expand...

Spock is the type of person that has the drive and ability to do pretty much whatever he wants. Having go back in time and saving Vulcan, I think that could be a great Trek movie.
 
Merc1138 said:
And people don't want it to happen in the next movie, which is the point. No one claimed that the cast of the past 3 ST movies was a bunch of Mary Sues.
Click to expand...

I think all of the SJW criticisms of Star Trek are nonsense as that's just what it's always been. The problem isn't that, it's just doing a good movie. There's a lot of material to draw on with Star Trek and the problem I see is people trying to do their own thing and not pull from the rich source material properly. Sort of like Star Trek Enterprise. I think the fourth season of that series was excellent and that's when it started to use Star Trek history well. But it was too late buy then. Instead we got a third season with the Xindi war. Why the hell not use the Romulans for that conflict? An Earth-Romulan war was already part of the history, that's how the Neutral Zone came about. But hey toss that all aside and create a whole new race and never tell the story of something decades in the making.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Considering that ST-TOS pretty much defined SJW decades before SJW became a thing, don't see a problem here. A Black female bridge officer in the middle of the civil rights movement, a Russian bridge officer in the middle of the Cold War, an Asian before Asians were cool. Not to mention a certain green blooded pointy eared Second Officer.

Way late to worrying about Star Trek going SJW.
Click to expand...
In TOS nobody cared about their nationality/race/gender. They were bridge officers, doing their jobs well. A modern SJW themed movie goes out of it's way to show that they're not there because they're good at their jobs, (usually they're terrible at their jobs by any reasonable standard) but they're there because they deserve to be there based on their race/gender/etc.

TOS is the exact opposite of the ideal SJW world, because people are judged based on their abilities and skills.

Because in SJW land everyone is equally good in everything, but women and non-whites are just little more equal than white males. I hope that does ring a bell.
 
M76 said:
In TOS nobody cared about their nationality/race/gender.
Click to expand...

Spock made much of his Vulcan heritage. According to Chekov everything was invented in Russia. Uhuru's native tongue as Swahili.
 
Last edited:
heatlesssun said:
Spock made much of his Vulcan heritage. According to Chekov everything was invented in Russia. And Uhuru's native tongue as Swahili.
Click to expand...
That's not what I meant. Of course they themselves cared about their heritage. It was their skill and ability to do the job that got them there and it didn't seem like they were chosen at a diversity hire, where a dozen people with better skills got passed up.

The only way to stop racism / sexism is to not talk about race and gender. It shouldn't matter. So when these press releases come out where some idiot studio wants to virtue signal, that they're putting a female character in a movie. It actually inflames sexism.
 
M76 said:
The only way to stop racism / sexism is to not talk about race and gender.
Click to expand...

Star Trek from the beginning talked about these issues, it's just nothing new to the franchise and there's always been an element of controversy surrounding Star Trek because of its liberal utopian vision of the future. The first female director of a Star Trek movie, OF COURSE that's going to draw attention.

The concept of the Federation is inherently controversial from a modern conservative perspective. World governments forming an interstellar multi-species, multi-cultural alliance where disease, poverty and war have essentially been eradicated, in the pursuit of understanding, peace, advancement and cooperation of all sentient life throughout the galaxy.
 
heatlesssun said:
The concept of the Federation is inherently controversial from a modern conservative perspective. World governments forming an interstellar multi-species, multi-cultural alliance where disease, poverty and war have essentially been eradicated, in the pursuit of understanding, peace, advancement and cooperation of all sentient life throughout the galaxy.
Click to expand...

What is controversial about peace, eradication of poverty / disease, and multi-species cooperation? How could anyone find those things controversial?
 
This is what bugs me about some movies these days. It's the "Look, we have a WOMAN in here! Look everyone, a WOMAN!".

Guaranteed that if they didn't make this announcement and just had the woman director and bad guy (bad person), it'd do just as well. I don't care about that. I just want a good movie. Focus on that, not the demographics of the actors. I feel that there is too much focus on WHO is in the movie, who's represented, and trying not to piss off some SJW group instead of focusing on making a good, amazing movie.

I didn't watch Alien, Terminator 2 because it had a damn fantastic female lead. I didn't watch Wayne's World, American Psycho, Wonder Woman because they had female directors. I watched them because they were just some very excellent movies. And those women that did that work are damn good at what they do. Those are among some of the best movies I've seen (well, Wayne's World maybe not...).

Basically - make a good movie, be a good actress. That's the first priority. The rest comes from that. Aside from Wonder Woman (rawr!), the only movie there that marketed itself for having a strong woman - The Bitch is Back.
 
Spaceninja said:
True, there has been. The original cast was diverse, the first interracial kiss on network TV and so on. It has always been that kind of show. Now it is heavy handed, they try to beat you over the head with equality and hate. The original series serves as an example of how to show that people can be strong characters of any race/sex.
Click to expand...
TOS was also amazingly equal opportunity: Kirk would hit on / sleep with pretty much anyone/anything and all/most redshirts, well, we all know they were all given the same chances at dying (well 73% did according to Wikipedia). :p
 
M76 said:
What is controversial about peace, eradication of poverty / disease, and multi-species cooperation? How could anyone find those things controversial?
Click to expand...

Little is more controversial in our time than the ideas of no one going hungry and everyone receiving medical care regardless of money, those are classic liberal dreams. Of course in the Star Trek universe the economics of post-scarcity apply due to technology. But there's long been debates over the economics of Star Trek that typically fall along conservative/liberal fault lines. Star Trek wouldn't be Star Trek unless there was the too liberal too SJW debate. That's always been there.
 
Ur_Mom said:
I feel that there is too much focus on WHO is in the movie, who's represented, and trying not to piss off some SJW group instead of focusing on making a good, amazing movie.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is arguing against just making a good movie regardless of the cast and crew and that that isn't achieved by SJWing so to speak. But the idea that NO ONE cared about SJWing in Star Trek until recently is kind of silly. That's just always been there, for better of for worse.
 
heatlesssun said:
I don't think anyone is arguing against just making a good movie regardless of the cast and crew and that that isn't achieved by SJWing so to speak. But the idea that NO ONE cared about SJWing in Star Trek until recently is kind of silly. That's just always been there, for better of for worse.
Click to expand...
And like I said earlier in this thread, the key difference is that it used to be social issues tacked onto an interesting show. Currently most SJW shows/movies tend to be social issues as stories and characters with poor writing, and then having an IP pasted over it.
 
heatlesssun said:
I don't think anyone is arguing against just making a good movie regardless of the cast and crew and that that isn't achieved by SJWing so to speak. But the idea that NO ONE cared about SJWing in Star Trek until recently is kind of silly. That's just always been there, for better of for worse.
Click to expand...

Seems a lot of movies these days are more for pushing the demographics of the movie instead of the movie itself. At least in marketing and others promoting the movie. Star Trek has always been very diverse and really was never that big of a deal. It was always expected and was just there.

My opinion has always been make a good movie and I'll watch it. I don't care if it's by some sister duo that has a transwoman main person and a woman bad person with the key grip being a woman as well. Do it well, and I'll watch it. Just make the movie the focus, not the demographics.

I get it, though. They want to show how inclusive they are, how great women can do, etc. to help others getting into the field recognize that it can be done. But, with some of these angles it really comes off as SJW and virtue signaling than anything else. It almost has the opposite effect, IMO. "This movie was great.... for a girl".
 
heatlesssun said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yea but obvious SJW injection is obvious. There's a way to do it tastefully, and then there's the forced SJW way. Someone wrote a script (assuming it was good) and then a SJW took it and rewrote it to fit their agenda. We have Leia going shooting star on our asses, an admiral female who for some reason won't explain her actions, and then we have insert Asian for Chinese market and generic black man who don't add anything to the movie.

Where in Star Trek Voyager, captain Janeway was constantly scrutinized for her actions by the crew and there wasn't any useless characters on the show. There wasn't an American Indian added for the sake of adding an American Indian, he was a real character with real flaws and emotions. Seven of Nine was added for fan service and nobody had a problem with this.
 
Last edited:
I was kind of turned off by the reboot in general. I know it is supposed to be an alternate universe and all, but the discontinuities with canon (both timeline and visual) were a bit too much for me.

I mean, I'll probably see it at some point, but unlikely I'll pay for it in a theater.

I thought JJ Abrams did a much better job with Star Wars than he did with Star Trek.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Seems a lot of movies these days are more for pushing the demographics of the movie instead of the movie itself. At least in marketing and others promoting the movie. Star Trek has always been very diverse and really was never that big of a deal. It was always expected and was just there.

My opinion has always been make a good movie and I'll watch it. I don't care if it's by some sister duo that has a transwoman main person and a woman bad person with the key grip being a woman as well. Do it well, and I'll watch it. Just make the movie the focus, not the demographics.

I get it, though. They want to show how inclusive they are, how great women can do, etc. to help others getting into the field recognize that it can be done. But, with some of these angles it really comes off as SJW and virtue signaling than anything else. It almost has the opposite effect, IMO. "This movie was great.... for a girl".
Click to expand...

DukenukemX said:
Yea but obvious SJW injection is obvious. There's a way to do it tastefully, and then there's the forced SJW way. Someone wrote a script (assuming it was good) and then a SJW took it and rewrote it to fit their agenda. We have Leia going shooting star on our asses, an admiral female who for some reason won't explain her actions, and then we have insert Asian for Chinese market and generic black man who don't add anything to the movie.

Where in Star Trek Voyager, captain Janeway was constantly scrutinized for her actions by the crew and there wasn't any useless characters on the show. There wasn't an American Indian added for the sake of adding an American Indian, he was a real character with real flaws and emotions. Seven of Nine was added for fan service and nobody had a problem with this.
Click to expand...

A show based on liberal utopian views about 250 years from now, I just don't know how it avoids these kinds of criticisms, it's just what Star Trek is and has always been. By design it's anti-conservative. These views don't make for great entertainment in and of themselves, that much I agree with.
 
DukenukemX said:
Where in Star Trek Voyager... ...and there wasn't any useless characters on the show.
Click to expand...
Neelix.jpg
 
Jim Kim said:
Racists Urge Boycott of ‘Star Wars: Episode VII’ Over Black Lead
Click to expand...
That's funny, I'm not seeing a single thing about [H] in that article. I'm still waiting to see all the posts about the racists here that supposedly complained over and over about Finn being black. You know, the thing that Lenard was responding to when he said it didn't happen. No one cares about the 100 people in bumblefuck hill town in the south that threw a tantrum and posted about it online, other than the people who constantly use that extreme minority as proof that anyone who didn't like the movie must have been just like them.
 
I'm a bit sad to see Lin go. I love his work with the Fast & Furious franchise and thought he killed it with Star Trek Beyond. TBH, I thought the first two Star Trek reboots were only OK. They were typical JJ Abrams, just retelling the same story (I have the same issue with his handling of Star Wars, which at this point I'm done with). That said, I think Star Trek #4 is in good hands and I'm in for it.
 
ThatsAgood1jay said:
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)
Click to expand...


Hey! You leave them fine alien boobies out of this. ;)
 
heatlesssun said:
A show based on liberal utopian views about 250 years from now, I just don't know how it avoids these kinds of criticisms, it's just what Star Trek is and has always been. By design it's anti-conservative. These views don't make for great entertainment in and of themselves, that much I agree with.
Click to expand...

It's not the show at all that I worry about. I've always loved that aspect, the utopian future views. That's the positive side of it. I like that part of the show, and it was great entertainment (save the whales, no money in the future, etc... as a kid, that was awesome!). Very little crime, humanity and aliens coming together for a peaceful federation of planets.

The OP has the rumored female villain and hero, directed by a woman. Recently, there has been a big push to go for that. Which is fine on it's own, but they are making it a strict point to do it and mention it and go with that as the spotlight feature. I think it's great to have women in those roles, but I don't think that should be the marketing point. I think most of it is due to the sites and publications that are pushing it, which sucks. I'd rather see a trailer, or hear something about the plot...
 
Ur_Mom said:
The OP has the rumored female villain and hero, directed by a woman. Recently, there has been a big push to go for that. Which is fine on it's own, but they are making it a strict point to do it and mention it and go with that as the spotlight feature. I think it's great to have women in those roles, but I don't think that should be the marketing point. I think most of it is due to the sites and publications that are pushing it, which sucks. I'd rather see a trailer, or hear something about the plot...
Click to expand...

The first woman to direct a Star Trek feature film, that's just going to get press, no two ways about that. As for the female villainess and heroine, Star Trek's been there and done that. The conclusion to Voyager, the future Admiral Janeway going back in time and taking on the Borg queen to get her crew home faster, SUPER well done Star Trek I think.
 
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...
The Dr. Daystrum actor was black. But I think you don't understand the problem. the way he was written 50 years ago was as a human character. Flawed would be mild. He was actually unstable and violent and almost a threat. SJWs would never write him that way today. On a rewrite, they would alter the personality flaws to be sure they zero chance of supporting a negative stereotype or if they had to keep him that way the second choice would be make sure his emotional and mental instability were inflicted by white racism. The former would alter the original story, the latter would break canon.
 
jpm100 said:
The Dr. Daystrum actor was black. But I think you don't understand the problem. the way he was written 50 years ago was as a human character. Flawed would be mild. He was actually unstable and violent and almost a threat. SJWs would never write him that way today. On a rewrite, they would alter the personality flaws to be sure they zero chance of supporting a negative stereotype or if they had to keep him that way the second choice would be make sure his emotional and mental instability were inflicted by white racism. The former would alter the original story, the latter would break canon.
Click to expand...

Oh please. The usual suspects said the same thing about Star Trek Discovery and it ended up being AMAZING. You people need to stop giving in to the hate.
 
jpm100 said:
The Dr. Daystrum actor was black. But I think you don't understand the problem. the way he was written 50 years ago was as a human character. Flawed would be mild. He was actually unstable and violent and almost a threat. SJWs would never write him that way today. On a rewrite, they would alter the personality flaws to be sure they zero chance of supporting a negative stereotype or if they had to keep him that way the second choice would be make sure his emotional and mental instability were inflicted by white racism. The former would alter the original story, the latter would break canon.
Click to expand...

Daystrom's flaw was his obsession with his work to the exclusion of everything else and the failure of M5 made him snap. Nonetheless, as flawed as he was, he was a super genius and Federation computer tech was based on his work. For all of the SJW debate around here, I've never seen Star Trek as trying to create perfect characters. How many times did Kirk violate the Prime Directive? Disregarding that even the destruction of his ship and crew may have been necessary to maintain compliance?
 
dgz said:
Oh please. The usual suspects said the same thing about Star Trek Discovery and it ended up being AMAZING. You people need to stop giving in to the hate.
Click to expand...

Yep. SJW complaints, CBS All Access only, Discovery was DOOMED! Except it wasn't and apparently did very well and now CBS is planning other Star Trek projects including a new animated series and some kind of Khan miniseries. The SJW complaints are always going to be there, the trick is just make something good and Discovery I thought was that. They took a chance on Michael Burnham particularly in making her Spock's adopted sister and that actually worked way better than I would have thought. A hell of lot better than Sybock, Spock's half-brother of Star Trek V that we also never heard of before then.
 
Last edited:
Chebsy said:
In my opinion Star Trek Beyond was the worst recent Star Trek movie, so this one can only be better.
Click to expand...

Just a bad story. An early Starfleet captain hell bent on destroying the Federation because, why? You could have found any number of Kirk/Federation enemies to use instead of some random dude that just doesn't seem to fit that kind of hatred.
 
jpm100 said:
You really think Solo was content burn out.
Click to expand...
I mean, it's debatable.
I think it's most likely that the movie just sucked because of bad screenwriting, rather than viewers feeling alienated with SJW shenanigans.

Start Trek: Enterprise is supposedly content burnout too, but this is also debatable, because it's more like it didn't get aired at a more appropriate time.
 
Sadly when they make a big deal of such things, it's because they know the movie is going to suck.
 
MrDeaf said:
I mean, it's debatable.
I think it's most likely that the movie just sucked because of bad screenwriting, rather than viewers feeling alienated with SJW shenanigans.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much of it is due to the focus on a single character rather than the whole story? Yea, 1-9 are focused on the Skywalker family. Rogue One was still based on the same story, but without the Skywalkers (blowing up the Death Star).

Solo is focused on Han Solo, which is one bad ass dude. I don't know if it's bad writing due to that or if it's just bad writing all together.

Make a Star Wars movie. Awesome! All these great ideas, huge universe, any time, etc.. Make a Star Wars movie based on this single character, when he was younger, etc.. Kind of makes some limits. Not sure if that was the case or not.


heatlesssun said:
The first woman to direct a Star Trek feature film, that's just going to get press, no two ways about that. As for the female villainess and heroine, Star Trek's been there and done that. The conclusion to Voyager, the future Admiral Janeway going back in time and taking on the Borg queen to get her crew home faster, SUPER well done Star Trek I think.
Click to expand...

Star Trek has had a lot of firsts when it comes to that stuff. They've always been pretty inclusive, progressive and such. I just want less "Girl Power!" and more "Space. The Final Frontier.". Which I'm sure it will be. Just the recent trends have it becoming more of an eyeroll when they announce stuff like this...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top