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

Merc1138 said:
"explicitly" LOL, seems we need to get you a dictionary as well. You didn't learn that A causing B doesn't mean A is the only cause of B until college? Sucks to be you I guess. Like I said, belongs in STEM, it's a part of the basic understanding of the scientific method without needing to be explicitly stated, and should have been taught well before college. But yeah, go ahead and keep on blaming US conservative values(which I somehow doubt you could even really define without calling someone a nazi) for all the worlds problems in a thread about a movie set in a fictional universe.
Click to expand...

Hey, it was your terrible argument ("if conservatism causes poverty, how can poverty exist without conservatism?")

I used to think people like you would get tired of losing arguments. Then I realized you genuinely can't even tell you're losing, and the world made so much more sense. :p
 
bugleyman said:
Thanks for being a case in point.
Click to expand...

Psst: It was a joke. It's Mel Brooks, man. Take it easy! It was off topic and meant to be taken as a joke! :D If you can't laugh at the little things, what's the point? :)
 
The SJW outrage machine is so excessive now that it's actually funny. I can predict outrage over simple article titles now. Our collective IQs have been lowered so dramatically that "woman exists in X" prompts cries of BUT MUH SJWS!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Draax
like this
Lifelite said:
Not even to mention the whole of the Federation would probably be called a welfare state by today's standards, seeing there's no economy, and living, medical, transportation expenses are all free.
Click to expand...

Just imagine the flat out fear and panic if a civilization as advanced as the Federation were to reveal itself to current day Earth. It could go well but there's so many ways that could end in disaster for people that aren't ready.
 
bugleyman said:
Hey, it was your terrible argument ("if conservatism causes poverty, how can poverty exist without conservatism?")

I used to think people like you would get tired of losing arguments. Then I realized you genuinely can't even tell you're losing, and the world made so much more sense. :p
Click to expand...
Makes up a lie, claiming something was posted that wasn't(again, and still can't quote it), claims he "won" an argument on the internet.

Congrats?
 
DukenukemX said:
Ok, to be fair I forgot about him. But you could add Wesley Crusher as well and nobody likes either of them.
Click to expand...
As much as people didn't like Wesley Crusher, at least most appearances of that character(I said most, not all) didn't serve to either make the situation worse or just make no sense. Neelix in voyager on the other hand, quite often got added to situations where the expertise of a crappy cook and garbage ship operator(I think that's what he did beforehand if I remember right?) couldn't possibly improve anything. Granted, both characters had plots where their direct and dumb actions caused problems.

"We've got to tech the tech thing till it works" "hey guys, I'm smart, I can tech too!"
"We've got to tech the..." "I made a pot of stew once that didn't kill anyone!"

Another thing, Wesley was in 68 episodes(which isn't a small number). Neelix was in 160+ and you still managed to forget him. That's a sign of a useless character.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
The SJW outrage machine is so excessive now that it's actually funny. I can predict outrage over simple article titles now. Our collective IQs have been lowered so dramatically that "woman exists in X" prompts cries of BUT MUH SJWS!!!
Click to expand...

It's not the woman exists in X. It's the tokenism (yea, I had to look it up):

Tokenism is the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to be inclusive to members of minority groups, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of racial or sexual equality within a workforce.
Click to expand...

That's what it comes off as. It's like "We have a black dude in our new movie!". What's it about? "We aren't saying yet!"
 
Ur_Mom said:
It's not the woman exists in X. It's the tokenism (yea, I had to look it up):


That's what it comes off as. It's like "We have a black dude in our new movie!". What's it about? "We aren't saying yet!"
Click to expand...

Ok, calling attention to "we have a new female cast member" is a bit silly, but a female villain is actually not only rare for Star Trek films, but only happened once before. ST1 had V'ger (the female crew member who was captured/assimilated does not qualify as the villain,) ST2 had Khan, ST3 had Kruge, ST4 had Space Sausage (lol,) ST5 had Sybok, ST6 had Chang, ST7 had Soran, ST8 had the Borg Queen, ST9 had Ru'afo, ST10 had Shinzon, ST11 had Nero, ST12 had Khan (again,) ST13 had Krall. So if 1 out of 13 films had a female villain, it seems reasonable to draw attention to having another one.

But by all means, please REEEEEEEEEE about non-straight white males in the entertainment industry.

edit: Completely forgot to mention that a female director is also news-worthy and nice to see women landing that particular gig at least occasionally now (directing big-budget action/adventure movies.)
 
heatlesssun said:
The Prime Directive is about as anti-Trumpian as it gets because Starfleet typically resists playing god. The Federation could use its technology to enslave and steal from lesser civilizations, remember "Mirror Mirror". ​
Click to expand...

I Fail to see where "playing God" is Trumpian. That seems to be more Bushinite or Clintonian. Trump is not entangling us in foreign wars or trying to displace the leadership/government. Also, enslavement and dispossession of other cultures seems to be more of a Muhammedian act. Likewise Obamunism seems to be more religious in origin that Trumpian Nationalism. At least with Trumpian Nationalism there seems to be adherence to a set of Nationalist policy as opposed to racial Identitarianism.

Also, Star Trek has had plenty of female villains and heroes: Janeway, Borg Queen, Seven, Troi, Dr. Marcus, Dr. Janice Lester, Uhura, Wesley, Duras Sisters, Tasha Yar, Sela, Winn Adami (Kai Adami), Kira, Dax, Beverly Crusher, Ro, Michael (Discovery)
 
Colonel Sanders said:
But by all means, please REEEEEEEEEE about non-straight white males in the entertainment industry.

edit: Completely forgot to mention that a female director is also news-worthy and nice to see women landing that particular gig at least occasionally now (directing big-budget action/adventure movies.)
Click to expand...

I love seeing anyone in the entertainment industry. I'm not only into white straight chick porn. ;) It's when it becomes more about the diversity than about the movie. And it's happened. This example is brought up a lot and is very overused, but Ghostbusters was that way. The movie wasn't that great, but they had that all female cast (and the big dumb man!). Yea, I laughed at a lot of it and I love some of those girls, but it was more about women in a Ghostbusters film than a Ghostbusters movie. They can do it right, but we just want a good movie. It's great they have a woman to direct it and as the main stars, but now that they made it big news - if it fails, it's because of misogyny. It can be a crappy movie, but that won't matter.

Also, I watch a lot of movies that aren't non-straight while males. And in all roles. Not porn, either. They didn't make it a huge deal. Oddly, many of them had female directors, too! Female directors, writers, and deals with non-traditional issues. There was no big stink about the movie.

It has nothing to do with it being a woman. It's more of the action of really focusing on the "It's a woman!" part of it. Which really doesn't matter. It's become normal at this point.
 
I am cool with it. So long as the lead gets around like Kirk did. Oh and female red shirts. Otherwise I agree with Ur_Mom. Make a good movie and who cares what gender is the lead.
 
Lenard said:
I Fail to see where "playing God" is Trumpian. That seems to be more Bushinite or Clintonian. Trump is not entangling us in foreign wars or trying to displace the leadership/government. Also, enslavement and dispossession of other cultures seems to be more of a Muhammedian act. Likewise Obamunism seems to be more religious in origin that Trumpian Nationalism. At least with Trumpian Nationalism there seems to be adherence to a set of Nationalist policy as opposed to racial Identitarianism.
Click to expand...

How would the 7+ billion people on Earth react to the knowledge that we are not alone in the universe and that there even more advanced civilizations in the galaxy than the Federation who from our perspective could be gods (the Q, the Organians)? There's NO WAY this planet is ready for that kind of knowledge.
 
Snowdensjacket said:
The fact that they are openly advertising that it's going to put women into men's roles and then probably have them act like men and react like men and be nothing at all like women, except that they don't have a penis, really doesn't sound good for the future of this franchise.
Click to expand...

lol jesus christ
 
heatlesssun said:
How would the 7+ billion people on Earth react to the knowledge that we are not alone in the universe and that there even more advanced civilizations in the galaxy than the Federation who from our perspective could be gods (the Q, the Organians)? There's NO WAY this planet is ready for that kind of knowledge.
Click to expand...

There's jokes around that... What do we do when aliens arrive? KILL IT!

No way are we ready for any other civilization. We can't even handle our own civilization without resorting to violence.
 
heatlesssun said:
How would the 7+ billion people on Earth react to the knowledge that we are not alone in the universe and that there even more advanced civilizations in the galaxy than the Federation who from our perspective could be gods (the Q, the Organians)? There's NO WAY this planet is ready for that kind of knowledge.
Click to expand...

I suspect we would use that knowledge for porn.

 
Merc1138 said:
Makes up a lie, claiming something was posted that wasn't(again, and still can't quote it), claims he "won" an argument on the internet.

Congrats?
Click to expand...
Merc1138 said:
So explain how it happens elsewhere, when conservative views in other countries aren't the same as in the US.
Click to expand...

Which is pretty much you making the argument "If A causes B, then B cannot exist without A" verbatim. Or is this a case of "argument by accident"?

(Hint: you're really just embarrassing yourself at this point. Quit while you're behind. Or don't; this is kinda fun!)
 
Gorankar said:
Star Trek has always been rather in your face with this sort of thing. They never felt the need to tell you they were though. Which of course causes me to wonder why they feel the need to do that.
I loved Voyager, Kate did awesome as Janeway. Her being a woman never really mattered. It just was. Which is as it should be.

Discovery was the only series that truly sucked. It had nothing to do with it being SJW though, they all have been. They just totally fucked up the Klingons, and a couple members of the main cast were ridiculously unlikeable, and the continued service of one crewperson on the show was not even possible in any military service ever. It badly broke the suspension of disbelief.

This is another case of the makers should just shut up about these things. If the new protag and antag are female, great, who cares. Pointing it out to us as though it should matter to us is both stupid, and sexist. It certainly does not fill me with confidence for the films entertainment value, when people with such poor judgement are making it.
Click to expand...

Exactly this..I don't care what race/sex/religion/species the main cast are up until the moment they start parading it around like some sort of triumph. When they do that it instantly feels like they are trying to push some stupid agenda and I don't want to be part of it. Voyager was good..Janeway was good even though it didn't start out that way, it steadily improved. But again, It just was..they may have been trying to push an agenda, I don't know and nor do I care as they weren't all in the media "Oh this is a female captain to show female empowerment blah blah blah" bullshit. It just was..that that is how it needs to be done.

If you want to use a female lead, Good for you. If you want to use a female lead as some kind of political statement..fuck you.
 
This just in:

Dilsney SWJ Studios may have acquired the rights to "Scronats Gone Wild".
J.J.Binks on board to direct...
 
Gorankar said:
Star Trek has always been rather in your face with this sort of thing. They never felt the need to tell you they were though. Which of course causes me to wonder why they feel the need to do that.
I loved Voyager, Kate did awesome as Janeway. Her being a woman never really mattered. It just was. Which is as it should be.

Discovery was the only series that truly sucked. It had nothing to do with it being SJW though, they all have been. They just totally fucked up the Klingons, and a couple members of the main cast were ridiculously unlikeable, and the continued service of one crewperson on the show was not even possible in any military service ever. It badly broke the suspension of disbelief.

This is another case of the makers should just shut up about these things. If the new protag and antag are female, great, who cares. Pointing it out to us as though it should matter to us is both stupid, and sexist. It certainly does not fill me with confidence for the films entertainment value, when people with such poor judgement are making it.
Click to expand...
Someone gets it.

If a character works and is believable, nobody even mentions the gender (except for actual sexists)

But if they feel the need to tell us that a character will be this or that up front, then that's just leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. First because it is virtue signalling. Second because now we have raised expectations from that particular character. Third because we feel that it wasn't a rational decision to make the character female, but a forced one.

If they never mentioned the gender of the villain until the movie came out, then nobody would even care. Except if the character sucked. But if the character is poorly written that has nothing to do with gender. It will get bashed, it's not sexism, it is poor cinema.
 
kju1 said:
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. Don't get me started on how shitty SW has been...
Click to expand...
Since you quoted me, I'll just say I completely agree with you about Scarlett. Unless this was going to be a small budget indie flick, it's likely going to have a major actor in the role. You or I might go see some small budget flick without a major star, but most people won't even consider it.
 
Micas99 said:
Hollywood is panicking over that whole rapey culture they've had for the last 100 years or so.
Click to expand...
All of human culture has been rapey since before recorded times. The only reasons it's a bigger deal in Hollywood are a portion of the public loves to eat up gossip about celebrities as if they're some exotic species and it's an industry that more directly and quickly experiences monetary gains or losses based entirely off of PR and the general appearance of things being in order. It's much easier to develop a negative emotional reaction to consumable media (even print media like novels and newspapers) with immediately recognizable faces & names attached to it. 9/10 people you put any totally subjective art form in front of them and tell them either the artist is a really amazing person or a total POS and that's going to color their perception of said art. Take those same people and ask them to evaluate a TV or a car with similar background information and they will still care, but it's going to be a far lower priority in their buying decision.
 
I got round to watching ST Beyond this weekend.

It was okay. However, it all boiled down to all the technology fails and the only way to fix things is two people beating the crap out of each other. That's been the ending of pretty much all three movies so far.

So as long as the plot is reasonably original (hmmm) and doesn't involve two people having to beat the crap out of each other 5 minutes from the end of the movie...maybe.

However, I'm taking bets that the two beating the crap out of each other will be the female characters...for a change.
 
Sucky movies suck because the stories suck, not because of the sex of the characters. It seems that the total editing of a script becomes, 'we need to blow something up/kill someone off, or have two characters fall in love/split up/kiss/have sex' more often to maintain interest. Enough already. Leave the romance to the romance films, the sex to the porn, and get on with the space fiction. ST TOS and the original Outer Limits had great plot lines especially when there was no love/sex in the story. The Gorn, the doomsday machine, O.B.I.T., the list just goes on and on. Today? Can't watch a single show without multiple straight/gay romances. Okay, so they're trying to get more women to buy tickets. But do they really? No. Women tag along to guy movies because they like the guy, and men take women to chick flicks so they can get laid later. And there's nothing wrong with that. But you don't see chick flicks with secondary plot lines about a spy infiltrating a military installation and blowing up the armory. So why does every spy/space/war/western now have to have romance inserted into it? (and yeah, homophobes, I don't necessarily like watching guys kiss each other either, but I admit that it doesn't belong in movies that aren't about that. If they want to watch that, that's what porn is for, just the same as when people want to watch straight love/sex scenes).
 
  • Like
Reactions: filip
like this
nightfly said:
Sucky movies suck because the stories suck, not because of the sex of the characters. "snip"
Click to expand...
This 100%. When the movie is bad because of no character development, mood, story and reactive characters they hype some SJW stuff to off set that. The movie still sucks but now your a "bigot" if you don't like it. Seen a few of these movies recently and i am not happy. Is there not one person with imagination and good story telling in Hollywood?
 
SJW's ruining movies faster than the normal pace. They will blame it on the macho pig men when all is said and done. Rinse and repeat. Bollywood needs a reset button.
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

Hardly. The transition to flawed and multi-faceted heroes happened in the 1980's. That's generally all we've seen since then. Now many characters are supposed to be sympathetic anti-heroes or at least heroes with real problems and serious short comings. Writing a deep, multi-faceted character is great. It can be rewarding and entertaining to watch such character progression and see these different facets of a given character. Unfortunately, that's not what we are seeing from most movies now. What we are seeing are bland characters passed off as being special with only their sexual orientations, genders and race being highlighted as important character traits. Everything else feels wooden, forced, and contrived. Characters that are competently acted, well written and interesting will be popular regardless of race, orientation or gender. That's not to say that stories around gender or sexual orientation can't be done. I think they certainly can be but it's become a check box trait for many modern characters in order to force a diversity quota or mandate.

Hollywood has always been liberal and left leaning but they used to have subtlety, and such messages weren't in your face annoying the shit out of you constantly. They don't even try to hide their disdain of the average person who's beliefs and ideology probably covers the middle of the spectrum between hard left and hard right. Hollywood has gotten fucking lazy which is why all it can do is remake and ruin older films with forced diversity and shitty sequels that make Michael Bay films seem like works filled with substance and depth.
 
That leftists slant their movies left is not really the issue. Unless they go whole hogg about it in a way that is not entertaining. It's when they spout off about it on social media as if there is some sort of wokeness contest. We would not even notice much of their nods to their idea of enlightenment and wokeness if they did not try to rub our noses in it. Then have the gall to cry when we don't go see it? Naw, fuck them.
 
[H] is going full incel with all the anti-SJW fear mongering.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
No, just normal people sick and tired of hollywood prioritizing virtue signaling over simply producing a good movie.
Click to expand...

So casting a female to have any role in a movie makes it be a shit movie 100% of the time. Got it.
 
Exavior said:
So casting a female to have any role in a movie makes it be a shit movie 100% of the time. Got it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no, that is not what he said. Compare Alien(s) to Ghostbusters 2016, one movie is shit because they casted females for the sake of casting females and the other is a timeless classic because they casted the right person for the role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top