#and then pike shows up and the whole thing is imploding as they speak - like he knows from the second that cab pulls up

[lisbonsteresa]

he's HORRIBLE

[thebad---catholic]

My problems with AOS

Well here I am, 10 years late with an opinion no one asked for, but I have to write this down and throw into the void so that I can be at peace. I’ve been salty about this film franchise for a very long time now. This will mostly focus on Star Trek (2009) with the other two movies sprinkled in.

1. Starfleet

Honestly where do I even begin? In TOS, Starfleet was modeled after the navy (idk how accurately, but Roddenberry was in the air force so I’m assuming he’d know how all that works). You can get a feel for the chain of command, and everything feels natural with character ages and things like that. There’s a procedure for everything.

AOS Starfleet feels more like a high school club than an interplanetary exploration organization. Jim is supposed to be twenty-five when he gets the rank of captain- after he was almost expelled for cheating. He has no idea how to operate or run a starship. TOS Kirk moved through the ranks of Starfleet and was promoted on merit and leadership skills- he worked for his position.

Why was Jim the only person who knew what was happening when Nero showed up? Was there any requirements to joining to Starfleet other than get on the shuttle? Why did the linguist not know the difference between Vulcan and Romulan when they’re the linguist? How did Pike bypass the chain of command to appoint Jim Kirk as First Officer which was an obvious show of favoritism to someone was about to be thrown out of the academy? Why the fuck was he allowed to keep the title of captain? What the fuck?

Speaking of Jim.

2. Jim Kirk’s Character

I...don’t like Jim’s character in this film. It’s not terrible for a younger version of Kirk, but like I said though, there’s no reason Kirk should be this young. And in this one he’s just kinda a douche.

We know from TOS that Kirk gets around, but he genuinely cares for his exes, and in general respects women. He uses sex appeal as a strategy, but more than anything this comes off as a subversion of the femme fatal trope bc Kirk is a man. In the movie, he’s just a standard action movie protag who has lots of sex just because.

The scene when the Orion woman says she loves him and he replied “that’s so weird” is just...so weird? Like I can’t imagine Kirk doing anything in that situation than backing off and explaining that he doesn’t feel the same way. The scene continues with him hiding under the bed when Uhura walks in. Watching how the camera angle makes Jim out to be a voyeur made me uncomfortable then and it still does. It could be explained that Jim is trying to figure out Uhura’s identity or that he’s listening in and people look at who they’re listening to but like...she was in her underwear. You shouldn’t look at people while they’re getting undressed, especially when they don’t even know you’re there? Is that a hot take? Apparently.

In TOS there’s this really nice scene in This Side of Paradise(S1E24) where the whole crew is high (again) and has abandoned ship, leaving Kirk to tend to things. We see Jim move around the ship with a little clip pad and make the proper checks. This is a captain who knows his stuff. That is the Kirk we should have seen if we’re going to see Jim become captain.

AOS kirk goes through a standard “stop being an asshole” arc commonplace for male protagonists, but this happens well past the point he should stop being an asshole. Either the AOS series should’ve been a prequel with Jim becoming captain at the end of the trilogy, or he should’ve been older with a completely different arc- maybe coming to terms with his rank? Imposter syndrome? Learning to trust his crew and building trust with them? Building a friendship with Spock and McCoy? There’s a lot to work with here.

3. Spock and Uhura’s relationship

Why. Like why. For what. Por Que.

I like giving Uhura a bigger role, I don’t like making her a love interest to do that.

It doesn’t make sense for either of their characters. Lieutenant Nyota Uhura, linguist expert who handles all transmissions to and from the enterprise- an icon of black women’s representation is now demoted to Spock’s nagging girlfriend. This bothers me more than a little bit.

It manages to make even less sense for Spock. A hallmark of Spock’s character is his duality. He struggles to combat his emotions and the human half of him. His repeating character arc in TOS is coming to terms with humanity while upholding the Vulcan way of life. Having him in an established romantic relationship before this arc is supposed to happen just makes for a boring romantic subplot about a relationship that shouldn’t happen and that I don’t care about.

TOS Vulcan culture is kinda shitty. Explicitly patriarchal and stuff, and also kinda racist against humans. The source of Spock’s inner conflict is not himself but a society that views him as lesser for being half human. However, one thing that I can certainly understand from a “logical” (logic in quotations bc racism and sexism is fucking stupid) people is ritualized arranged marriages. It just...makes sense to me that Vulcans would simply have their mates chosen for them and then marry that person and be done with it. Neat. Logical. Conformity.

This makes Spock and Uhura’s relationship even stranger. Why would Spock go so against conformity that he dates someone before he truly comes to terms with himself? Even if they throw out ponfarr and arranged marriage, it still doesn’t work but now it especially doesn’t work.

My personal theory is that Spock and Uhura’s relationship was established purely to make shippers shut up. It’s no secret Spirk is the most popular ship from TOS. I have no doubt they knew this while writing the movie. So to quietly wrap a no homo on Spock and Kirk’s friendship, they use Uhura as a prop to do so.

The teacher/student dynamic should only be relegated to fan fiction and the throwaway line about oral sensitivity makes me cringe. Every. Time.

4. McCoy

Karl Urbans performance is easily my favorite part of this movie. He captures DeForrest Kelley so well it hurts. He made Leonard Nimoy cry. His chemistry with Pine made McKirk go from the most underrated triumvirate ship in TOS to rival Spirks popularity in AOS. His scenes with Zachary Quinto are just *chefs kiss*.

So why doesn’t he have more of a role? The triumvirate is missing a third.

In particular, there’s a scene where Uhura, Kirk, and Spock make their way down to a planet to talk to a Klingon. I can’t remember which movie it was or why, but Spock and Uhura were bickering and Kirk remarks “can we do this later?”

The line was funny. It would’ve been golden if it was McCoy and not Uhura.

A fantastic performance by an underutilized character in a movie where that character should’ve been at the forefront.

5. Representation

I am skeptical of any movie that advertises diversity. Nonetheless, it made me happy to know Sulu was going to be gay. This is Star Trek after all, known for its diversity and large LGBT fan base, and an homage to George Takai who’s a gay man irl. So whatever.

The fact that I wasn’t expecting much says a lot about the current state of LGBT rep in media but this blink-and-you-miss-it shit is really starting to get to me.

I mean he jus- he doesn’t even give his husband a KISS. Like why.

6. Destroying Vulcan

WHY. Oh god why.

This isn’t Star Wars, JJ. We don’t do that here.

Imploding Vulcan was the most god awful shock value bullshit plot device I’ve ever seen in a movie and it was done entirely to make Spock sad. Besides the gaping plot hole of “why did Nero go back in time to destroy Vulcan when he could’ve just saved Romulus” I’m just grasping to find a purpose for this particular event. New fans don’t care at all about Vulcan while I was enraged that they would do Amanda that dirty.

It’s not just that they did that, it’s more that they did it like that. Vulcan’s destruction should’ve caused a federation wide meltdown as the biggest catastrophe in the entire franchise. If they were gonna make the stakes so pointlessly high, they should’ve treated the destruction of Vulcan exactly how they would treat the destruction of earth. There a million ways to treat that event with more gravity and million better plot lines that don’t involve G E N O C I D E

7. Miscellaneous petty bullshit because I’m a baby

-lower the fucking stakes Jesus Christ

-Don’t like the set. It’s bright and white and boring and gives me a headache. You don’t need a remake of the old set but like have fun ya know? Shit looks like an Apple store.

-Christine and I are the same in that we are both soft and are thirsty for Spock. Imagine my surprise to learn she wasn’t fucking there. Same with Janice but I’m more pressed about Christine. I don’t even remember the name of that blonde doctor lady who is Not Christine but i didn’t want her.

-The costumes in AOS look boring but still don’t feel like a uniform either. I deadass think Chris Pines outfit in the SNL skit looked better than the actual movie (minor adjustments needed)

-I didn’t notice this at first but someone pointed out that women’s uniforms don’t signify rank and now I can’t not see it. I don’t...think this movie treats women good? Or McCoy? Or just people who deserve better?

-Lens Flare

-I get why they did it but I don’t like that they misquoted the opening theme to say “no one” instead of “no man”. I probably wouldn’t have even notice except they gave the line to Uhura. Comes off as just a touch too “yay feminism” which is really rich coming from that treated Uhura like an object to be looked at when she wasn’t too busy being Spock’s emotional support gf, and completely cut two women from the main cast.

8. Conclusions

If I could describe these movies in one word it’d be generic. Which sucks because Star Trek far from generic.

They’re fun to watch but not think about. It was nice that I got to see a Star Trek movie in theaters. I just wish it as the same Trek I saw on TV.

[lit-bee-blog1]

‘Pretty’ by Stevie Smith

Written in 1966, ‘Pretty’ is a post-modernist poem comprising nine stanzas of blank verse, each stanza is a quatrain.  I shall focus on each individual stanza, analysing them individually and also as a whole.  I shall also look briefly at the poem in it’s historical context.

   Smith’s use of repetition in this poem seems mild, complacent almost, with a definite simplistic quality until the climactic final two stanzas where the word ‘pretty’ implodes almost, and we discover a certain disgust and anger at the naiveté of mankind -  The voice of the speaker wanders through the poem, judging all the time and restricting and thereby reducing everything to a single point - the word ‘pretty’.

   Interestingly, the poem begins with a ‘fall’ then the speaker wanders through nature as the observer in a seeming state of blissful ignorance to it’s inner truth’s.  Judgements as to degree’s of ‘prettiness’ or not are made continually,  then the voice changes and, in the final two stanza’s, in first person - the poem speaks directly to the reader. This has a Biblical quality.

    The poem is striking for the repetitive use throughout of the title word ‘pretty’. Smith has taken a word in everyday use and holds it up to magnify, disorientate and question us, the reader, causing us to reflect on the use of language.  I believe that this is perhaps the single most important feature of the poem.

  In the opening stanza, Smith asks why it is that the word pretty is so ‘underrated’.  She then moves into an almost childlike, reflection on a leaf and how ‘pretty’ it’s fall from the tree is. This is perhaps setting the scene for the sense of ‘disconnectedness’ that the speaker has from the realities of life.  A child might hold a leaf and, without the full panoply of the english language to express feelings for it, comment that it is ‘pretty’, whilst feeling all the while that it is quite something else. By repetition of the word throughout, Smith limits us, just as a child’s vocabulary limits their ability for true expression.

The speaker then reflects on a pool of water becoming ‘pretty’ after the rain. A slightly more ominous tone is adopted at the carnivorous pike that ‘stalks’.

    In the second stanza, the pike continues to stalk his prey. This is a commentary on how there is, at first, escape before the prey succumbs, just as the leaf has, to the inevitability of the natural world.

    The move from the second to the third stanza has a shift, as Smith moves us into it by capitalising the word ‘And’ to begin her reflection on the water rat as not being pretty. She glances back at what has happened in the water; the triumph of the Pike pursuing it’s prey and decides that this is not what ‘pretty’ is.

   In the third stanza, she speaks of the Otter having no choice in habitat. Again, this is an allusion to the inevitability of the natural world, coupled with deliberate ignorance at nature’s cruelty, for the water rat cannot close it’s nostrils.

        In the fourth stanza, hunting is once again predominant, as the owl moves over the water, seeking its prey. However, the tone changes as Smith speaks of the frost coming from the ground, intimating that as this is where all things come from, it is ‘pretty’, emphasising in the final line that ‘it could not be prettier’.

In the fifth stanza, She then glances back, as in stanza three and decides that ‘Yes, it could be prettier’. The poem then moves from the storybook quality of the word ‘pretty’ perceiving the animals and for the first time Smith uses a word that has many meanings, but for the purpose of this essay, I shall use it’s connotation as meaning ‘uneasy’.

The eye that has watched the animals, commenting on how ‘pretty’ they and their actions are, and to what degree, suddenly becomes self-conscious. ‘the eye abashes.’

      It cannot see enough and so, it moves upwards to the sky, taking the field with it as it does so, becoming free from the constraints of the world below; it chooses to ignore and shift it’s perception.

   The sixth stanza finds the focus moved from the world below to the world above, as though the poet has taken the entire scene and tilted it upwards to escape the reality of what is happening below.  The final two lines comment on how easy this may seem but how extraordinary both this action is, and how extraordinary it is to be so ‘pretty.’ Here, the word’ pretty’ becomes a force of escape from the mundane. Not liking what is changing below, the gaze shifts upwards and takes it’s ‘world’ with it.

   The seventh stanza speaks of the carelessness of nature, it’s indifference to Mankind. At this point in the poem, the word ‘pretty’ has assumed some power, as though a child-like voice has definite ideas about what is and is not ‘pretty’ From the animal world and the world of predator and prey, the poem moves into a comment on the difference between the animal world and that of nature which are one and the same to the outsider - the eye of the human, and how indifferent to their gaze nature really is.

  There is a change in voice in the final two stanza’s, as Smith alludes to people coming into the world of nature, cloaking it with their misguided perceptions and then moving on, like  a thief who having glanced at something, steals it by having done so. An exclamation mark now punctuates her sense of how easy it is to watch a scene, comment on it with  mundane word’s yet be unable to grasp what goes on beneath the surface, perhaps by choice.

‘Now a person can come along like a thief - pretty!- Stealing a look, pinching the sound and feel.’ The word ‘pinching’ is interesting here, as it is this is another word for theft. The watching eye has wandered along ‘stealing’ as it moved, unable to let the realities simply be.

So, by the eighth stanza the eye deliberately rejects the truth, having looked only for prettiness in the natural world.  Now the idea of using words to describe nature seems shallow and cruel, as the world of Man is compared to the easy natural world of nature and the animals and scenes that exist within their own laws.

‘Lick the icicle broken from the bank, and still say nothing at all, only cry pretty.’

Here, Smith seems to be saying that we break the ice, we steal the ice to experience something of the natural world, but have to ‘break’ it to do so, thereby ruining it. Unable to appreciate the realities of nature whilst holding its beauty, the imperfect eye of Man can only move to its inevitable death, and perhaps here Smith is making an allusion to how language evolves and thereby enables freedom and existentialism. Just as words ‘die’ and others take their place in common use, she seems to speak directly to the wanderer in the woods as she warns that soon they will not even be able to cry the word ‘pretty’.  It is an angry stanza, speaking as it does in the final two lines of deliverance from humanity being ‘the prettiest thing of all. ‘

        Pretty is an unusual poem. Smith keeps us emphatically within the word from one stanza to another, as she shows us why it is that this quite mundane word is important. She shows it’s versatility throughout the poem simply by the fact that she holds onto the word so utterly; it’s playfulness, by the way in which she cleverly brings us into the world of the childlike, where animals are taken as being ‘pretty’ because their true nature is not only never understood - there is an implication of the darker aspects of the word - that true knowledge of it would spoil perhaps the misconceptions that we have about reality. The message is ‘do not take things at face value’.

     I have looked at the individual stanzas that comprise this poem and also at the allusions to Man’s imperfect view of the world.  Stevie Smith has taken us on a journey in this poem, and has questioned the perhaps mundane eye that looks at nature at being ‘cute’ or ‘pretty’ lulling us into a  sense of false security until, in the final two stanza’s, she turns angrily on the idea of ‘prettiness’, asserting that the voice that speaks pretty will cry pretty and then be annihilated; thereby unable to cry at all.

  Interestingly, this poem was written at the height of the “Swinging Sixtie’s’ - A time where looking ‘pretty’ was considered more important in mainstream culture than ever before.

‘Pretty’ could be considered as a commentary on certain value changes that occurred in the 20th century, resulting in a certain superficiality.

CC Lit-Bee 2016