Captain Irony and the Irony Watch: Spock/Uhura

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

We are seeing a rare head-butting of agendas in various fan discussions of the Spock/Uhura relationship.

The new film has Uhura involved with Spock, building upon a flirtation that we hadn’t seen since “Charlie X” (when there was clearly something cooking between her and Spock in the rec room sequence). Indeed, some have observed that she has more to do in two hours of the film than she had in the original 79 episodes combined.

Yet the irony is that two groups are grinding their individual axes against each other and the sparks are flying.

In this corner: those who are declaring that having Uhura involved with Spock turns her into a girl toy and reduces her to an object of sexual desire.

In the other corner: those who declare that anyone who feels that way is actually uncomfortable with a black woman involved with a white man and is therefore a racist, whether they admit it or not.

So basically we have a strong black woman in a position of authority with an active sex life…and either she’s a stereotype or anyone who objects to it is a racist.

Captain Irony away!

PAD

135 comments on “Captain Irony and the Irony Watch: Spock/Uhura”

    1. Well…he’s GREEN BLOODED. And also a hybrid. Half human/half vulcan. I was raising my eye brow there. I just love the relationship. Hmmm..if they ever have a recreation where they meet that race of telekentics that forced Kirk Prime and Uhura Prime to make out….man how much juicier would that be if between the new versions with Spock watching and macking it out with Nurse Chapel…who exists in this timeline by the by. Doctor McCoy called out for her. I feel I should borrow the Track A and Track B thing PAD used in Q Squared. Just so I don’t confuse myself. lol

    2. Well…he’s GREEN BLOODED. And also a hybrid. Half human/half vulcan. I was raising my eye brow there. I just love the relationship. Hmmm..if they ever have a recreation where they meet that race of telekentics that forced Kirk Prime and Uhura Prime to make out….man how much juicier would that be if between the new versions with Spock watching and macking it out with Nurse Chapel…who exists in this timeline by the by. Doctor McCoy called out for her. I feel I should borrow the Track A and Track B thing PAD used in Q Squared. Just so I don’t confuse myself. lol

  2. *Group 1: Uhura’s prominence as a (Black) woman in a position of power is undermined by being Spock’s sex object.
    *Group 2: Anyone who is opposed to the relationship is racist (some opposers are indeed racist, others have less bigoted reasons).
    *According to Group 2’s logic. Group 1 is racist,
    *Group 1 is on their World According To Garp trip. Now, what makes a working women in a relationship with a comrade any less credible?
    *Group 3 (everyone else):…SHUT THE **** UP! It’s a movie!

  3. I’m glad they gave Uhura something to do. She got far better treatment than the other 3 “minor” cast members. The only thing that struck me as odd about it was Spock. Would he really risk his career as a teacher/officer by having a relationship with a cadet?

    Besides, as far as turning her into an object of desire, I’ll quote Galaxy Quest and ask “Did any of you ever WATCH the show?” Those mini-skirts were there for a reason.

    1. There’s some weirdness involved with rank. Kirk, McCoy and Uhura were implicitly set up as cadets when the crisis begins, but Spock also addressed Uhura as Lieutenant when she talked him into reassigning her, and McCoy referred to himself as one of the Enterprise’s senior medical officers when he was bringing Kirk on board.

      Granted, Uhura’s at least a year ahead of Kirk and McCoy, so it’s plausible that she had just graduated from the academy but hadn’t been assigned to a ship yet. Also, McCoy was already a doctor when he joined the academy, so it’s just as plausible that he went through the academy quickly. Even so, we shouldn’t have to fanwank like this.

  4. Man, I’m glad I saw the movie before I saw this. Way to be a spoiler, PAD.

    1. While I agree with your sentiments about spoilers, it is your obligation to yourself to avoid all discussions of the movie until after you have seen it.
      .
      And I also think it is nearly impossible to avoid spoilers if you are online. Or reading you local newspaper. Or watching Saturday Night Live. Or entertainment tonight.
      .
      I was very careful to avoid spoilers, yet had one plot point spoiled while reading a site that isn’t even movie related. Pìššëd me off, it did.

  5. I liked the whole Spock-Uhura relationship in the movie. Apart from disproving two common beliefs — trailers give away all the plot details, and Kirk gets all the women — it raised some interesting questions and posisbilities. How does a man who attempts to repress all emotions balance with that man’s qualities of intelligence, honor, and respect? What of the potential conflict of having a romantic partner serving under them on a starship? (Then again, considering how rapidly characters got assigned and reassigned in this STAR TREK, the chain of command may not be a factor.) And does Spock being half human mean Uhura doesn’t have to only have sex once every seven years? (Then again, I’ve got to imagine the advances in sex toys by that century must be wonderful — even before holodecks.)

    Anyhoo, it was nice to see Uhura as a developed character — possibly the most developed one behind Kirk and Spock. When I think of her on the original series, I always think of Sigourney Weaver’s character in GALAXY QUEST whose sole function seems to be repeating what she hears.

    1. Spock seems more accepting of his human heritage in this universe than he is in the Primeverse.

    2. Vulcans having sex only once in 7 years is a fan-created myth. Nobody ever said that in any of the shows or movies, and D.C.Fontana, story editor and one of the principal writers of TOS (and one most involved in creating the character of Spock) explained that Vulcans have sex any time they want, just like any otehr humanoids. The infamous Pon Farr is just the only time when they HAVE to do it, when it is an overwhelming physical urge that they cannot control, and the chemical inbalance makes them aggressive and could cause them to die. This is the only time they cannot control their feelings, that is why they are so ashamed of it.

  6. Maybe it’s because I’m ex-military, but the relationship bothered me, but not for any reason given here so far.

    Now, maybe things have changed by the 23rd century, but can you imagine the uproar if any instructor (with the rank of Commander, no less) at Annapolis started an affair with a 3nd or 4th-year cadet?

  8. The Uhura/Spock ship was a surprise, I must admit. It isn’t so much because of the trailer’s implications (because it’s not like trailers are above the bait-and-switch) but because it’s Spock. The Trekkie in me wondered why he wasn’t with Chapel.

    Still, there’s potential there. What is needed to really sell it to me is for Uhura to get a couple of moments where she can really shine. She’s a highly intelligent, quick thinking polyglot and I think that there ought to be room to show that off.

    This is something I’d like for the rest of the Magnificent Seven as well. In many ways this was the Kirk and Spock movie, so I hope that the rest of the films lighten up on the emphasis on them to allow the others to shine. Sulu got the fight on the drill, but the editing didn’t show him off as much as it could have, and the others didn’t even have that. I especially hope for more from Karl Urban’s McCoy, who possibly got the shortest shrift of the lot.

    1. I am very relieved it was not with Chapel. He always had a much better chemistry with Uhura in TOS, and it was very disapointing they did not do more with it (probably because those were 1960s, after all). Chapel was weak and wimpy and her pining over Spock and acting like a lovelorn puppy around him annoyed me quite a bit. I do not like unequal relationships, and I never felt that this pairing could go anywhere.

  9. This is the most I’ve seen Uhura do something in 79 episodes AND six movies. Combined. Anything that gives her character depth, and the lovely actress more screentime, is welcome.

    I liked how Kirk was constantly hitting on her, because you’d figure he’d be going after the gal who got away. And it set up the reveal on the transporter pad when Kirk finally thought he heard her first name and Spock says quickly: “I refuse to comment on the matter”.

    I think people should be happy this is the most we’ve seen of her in any film or movie.

  10. Uhura has got to know on some level the relationship can never “go all the way” , as it were. I think at some point she is going to realize this, that Spock is going to commit to the Enterprise and Jim Kirk and any distraction to that is going to be out of the question. Nyota is going to have to move on, especially since he is her commanding officer.

    Any racial or gender problems that anybody has hasn’t been paying attention to Gene’s vision… It doesn’t exist.

  11. Is it really against regs in Starfleet (even in the alternate timeline) to knock boots with a superior / junior officer? I don’t remember seeing that mentioned anywhere. Personally, I always thought that Kirk had some interpersonal relationships with almost all the female members of the Enterprise crew. Hëll, it was probably during the job interview.

    1. In one TNG episode, they specifically say that it’s *not* against regs for an officer to have a relationship with a subordinate.

    2. Kirk never slept with any of the female crewmmembers. That was his one big no-no. He was very uneasy about his sexual tension with Yeoman Rand (the only female crewmember he really had some flirtation / attraction with) and in The Naked Time he said he felt , unlike everyone else on the ship, he did not have the right to notice her attractiveness because he was THE CAPTAIN. He was also very uneasy in Shore Leave when he realized that his female Yeoman (with whom he had nothing going on) was the one giving him a back rub, and put a stop to it instantly.

      But nobody else ever had any problems flirting or hooking up with other crewmember, granted, in most cases they were equals or at least not directly a superior/subordinate. As far as I remember, Chekov dated a female officer, McCoy hooked up with Kirk’s yeoman in Shore Leave, Scotty pursued a couple of female crewmembers, Chapel was always acting like a lovelorn puppy around Spock… and Uhura didn’t see anything wrong with flirting with Spock, even though he was her superior officer.

  12. I didn’t really like the relationship between the two of them, but that’s mostly because I felt it seemed kind of thrown in, as if to sell the script they had to add some sort of romance. But then, I feel that romances in the Trek universe have always been hit or miss, and I’m far more used to the two usual Trek romance plots (either a slow build-up with lots of sexual tension, as per the series, or picking some random throw-away character who only appears in two episodes OR one movie who disappears later). It has little to do with either character, or at the very least little to do with Spock since Uhura is one main character female crew member.

    As far as Uhura being treated as a sex object, I think she came off as confident, attractive, and able to kick most people’s áššëš. Sure she’s in a skirt, but it’s longer this time. Even when they show her in a bra, her posture is strong and assertive, which sends the clear message that she isn’t fragile. There’s no damsel in distress scene, so although she’s to a certain extent put forth as easy on the eyes (as are most of the male cast), she hasn’t been weakened. As far as female characters in action movies go, this is a movie that really does a decent job.

  13. When you aren’t sure of the validity of your argument, yell “Racism!”. Like the old saying goes, if you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance baffle them with bûllšhìŧ.
    .
    I was a bit leery of the whole Spock/Uhura bit at first but it paid off. We can all speculate as to why this Spock became as he did–the interesting and kind of counter intuitive suggestion is that by not having Kirk as his buddy early on Spock actually became MORE human. Having the emotional Kirk around drove Spock to embrace the more logical less emotional side. Or Kirk was just a world class çøçk blocker.

    1. When you aren’t sure of the validity of your argument, yell “Racism!”. Like the old saying goes, if you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance baffle them with bûllšhìŧ.
      .
      Yeah, I’ve had some first hand experience with that.
      .
      PAD

      1. “Yeah, I’ve had some first hand experience with that.”
        .
        Really? We have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe you should make a thread about it.
        .
        🙂

      2. When you aren’t sure of the validity of your argument, yell “Racism!”. Like the old saying goes, if you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance baffle them with bûllšhìŧ.
        .
        Yeah, I’ve had some first hand experience with that.
        .
        PAD

        Yeah, you have haven’t you. 🙂 Except that those arguements were valid.

        I really wish people would be able to distinguish between doing unintentionally racist things, out of ignorance (like you frequently do) and BEING a racist.

        Mostly, I wish folks would just take the criticism, learn from it, and move on.

        As for those camps. You’ve simplified them a bit too much. 🙂

        There are those who just feel squicky about ANY woman involved with Spock, there are those who consider Uhura a whørë and not just a whørë but a BLACK one at that (big tip-off that race is a factor, there), and there are fans who complain about female represenation because, well Uhura doesn’t count because she has brown skin.

        *shrug*

        Peter, I know you’re bitter about fandom calling you out on your ignorance about race, but well the smart reaction is to simply read up. Not to get bitter.

        Because you really have tarnished your rep, now.

    2. There is a good bit of genuine racism in a lot of what Hollywood puts out.

      I always think of how one of those dumb ____ Movies called it out.

      “I’m the black guy. I’m just here to act hip and say things like ‘bling bling’!”

      But given Roddenberry’s original vision for Star Trek was a world where racism and sexism had been transcended, it would’ve been disrespectful to the source material and a slap in the face to the fans to have intentionally been sexist and/or racist with regards to Uhura or anyone.

      So perhaps the people saying racism are just not familiar with Trek. Particularly given the fact that Kirk is so not-racist he gets it on with women who aren’t even human.

      2. Well, I dunno, that one shapeshifter might not have necessarily been female…
        .
        But yeah. “Two arms, two legs, two breasts… first 4 units negotiable.”

  14. Sexist stereotypes:
    1. Uhura only had slightly more authority than TOS Uhura. They made it slightly cooler by describing her “pinnacle of human capability” hearing, but all she did was yell “stop it!” during the fight. Every male in the cast had a fight scene. Uhura looked annoyed and yelled at them to cut it out (which could be construed as “man smart, woman smarter” or it could be construed as “woman too delicate to fight”)…and they didn’t (which is more easily construed as “who cares what you think, you’re a girl”).

    2. Uhura is not Spock’s sex object. He is HER sex object. You notice every time they do kiss, Uhura starts it. And although Spock returns the affection, it’s awkwardly and uncertainly, because his Vulcan nature is at war with his human nature. Uhura doesn’t have that disadvantage. She indulges her emotions. Passionately. Rock on, Uhura!

    The racism thing is just silly, IMO. Why? Uhura turns down Kirk. The hottest man in several solar systems who can nail every other more-or-less compatible female without trying can’t get Uhura to give him the time of day. She isn’t shallow enough to go for him because she sees him for the womanizing jerk he is. But not because he’s white.

    Spock and Uhura pairing is hot. Way hot.

    1. Someone could make the argument that, because she’s the communications officer, her way of fighting was with her words… although “Stop it!” really isn’t witty. I don’t recall Chekov or Scotty getting fight scenes either. I’m fairly certain the only reason why they gave one to Sulu was so they could have some sword fighting (and besides, of all of the original crew they gave him the least lines, I felt).

  15. If I hadn’t already seen this movie, I really would have appreciated a spoiler alert and a different title.

    I haven’t seen either side of this debate and I don’t know anyone who has claimed anything similar. I’d like to see the context if a link is available.

  16. Thanks for reminding us about the “Charlie X”. My hubby and i, when discussing this, observed that we always noted that Spock and a great deal of respect for Uhura in the classic series and was not that pleased with Nurse Chapel’s mooning ways. Frankly, she came off like a twit.

    However, it still seemed a bit out of left field since we saw nothing at the Academy. Uhura is supposedly not happy with all the goings on of her roommate. Was it because she didn’t get equal time?
    I’m hoping that the novelization due out on Tuesday may help. I’m thinking their might be a cut scene that helps set this up.

  17. Spock was Uhura’s boy toy. She’s totally using him to sleep her way to the top.

  18. Wow,

    I thought it was great seeing Spock get and Uhura together, extra great because Kirk couldn’t even get her first name.

  19. wow I didn’t think something like Uhura/Spock relationship was going to cause such a fuss. What make’s this trek “reboot” so great is that it just isn’t a blatant re-do, but it gives us the opportunity to see our favorite moments replayed with different outcomes. Kinda like the Ultimate Marvel universe or the Mutant X comic with Havok. And clearly the Spock/Uhura relationship is one built of respect, for example – Uhura guarding her emotions in public (more so than Spock at times). Uhura wasn’t a sex object in the movie, otherwise she would have been sleeping with Kirk before Spock. Any racism comments can be filed down a garbage chute. It was nice to see the entire crew being utilized in some fashion and not just dragged around. Hëll even Chekov got a ton of screen time.

  20. I’m just glad Uhura didn’t automatically hook up with Kirk, the way they made it look in some of the trailers.

    1. they did really make it look like she was going to hook up with Kirk immediatly in the previews. in the one that was aired the most where i am, they showed him hitting on her and then showed a bit of the sex scene with the green chick, but without showing anything enough of her head/hair for you to NOT think it was uhura.

      i was pleasantly surprised by the kiss and pairing. however the guy behind me in the theatre was a Die Hard who stood up and said ” H’es Cheating on Nurse Chapel!”

  21. I thought the relationship was kind of unnecessary, but I did like the way it was handled– understatedly and mostly off-camera, the way those characters would probably prefer it.

    (Kirk, by contrast, would probably invite camera crews into the bedroom. Hëll, he’d serve them drinks.)

  22. Um, Peter…not all of us saw the film. So I just got spoiled for something fairly big. Can I respectfully request you put this post under a cut-tag for anyone else who hasn’t seen the film?

    Also, I will reserve comment about this subject till I see the film. But the old school Trekkie in me, the one who is still annoyed with Trip and T’val, is making angry noises.

    1. It’s really not that big a deal. It’s screamingly evident within the first half hour, it doesn’t blow a major aspect of the plot, and I didn’t discuss the specific details of the relationship.
      .
      PAD

      1. It’s still one of those little tidbits you want to have surprise you while watching the film. And you spoiled it.

      2. As the one who debagged the cat, I really don’t think you get to decide how big a deal it was or wasn’t for others…
        –
        Personally, I’m not going to burst into tears over it, but given a choice I’d have preferred not knowing what was posted before I saw the movie. I’m vaguely irked that someone as spoiler savvy as yourself did that.
        –
        Cheers.

  24. Hi there, long time reader, first time poster.

    I saw this movie in a packed theatre on Saturday and loved it. I thought the Spock/Uhura pairing was brilliant and not in any way demeaning to either character. Which really makes me wonder, what exactly gave people the impression that Uhura was an object of any sort? What’s wrong with having an intelligent, self-reliant and beautiful woman getting involved with a man who is clearly her equal? At no point is she shown fauning over her big strong man who swept her off her girly little feet. What is depicted is a relationship based on mutual respect from both parties and dámņ was it hot.
    And no Michael, she’s not sleeping her way to the top. Even if you are joking there’s nothing funny about that comment. Clearly Uhura was already getting there on her own merit when her and Spock first crossed paths.

    Also, a spoiler warning would be nice next time please 🙂

  25. I think the “girltoy” argument can be shot out of the water by pointing out that A. Uhura pursued Spock and instigated the relationship, B. Uhura rejected Kirk’s advances consistently, meaning she wasn’t just any “party favor”.

    It’d probably be more accurate to say that those who were bothered by the relationship were more put off by it not being “canon”. But it would be just as wrong to make that as an “accusation” as it is to say those people are racist — because I’m not a zarkin’ mind-reader. Their reasons for disliking that aspect of the movie are their own, and I’ll accept them at face value, even though I probably disagree. 🙂

    Wildcat

  26. This film was great and I might get some “poop in a flaming bag” for saying this but, I honestly feel that this movie was the best Star Trek movie aside from Wrath of Khan (cause you just can’t touch the Montalbon). Who wants to bet that the next movie will redo the Khan storyline?

    Ok, I’m off subject. Spock and Uhura having a relationship is a great addition to this new path. I say why not! Spock and Uhura both needed some love in the originals so what better pair? I also think that the sexual side of Uhura being shown more only makes her a stronger female character then she was before. It makes her more realistic. I’m sorry, but most of the women I have known are not timid sexually when it comes to a relationship so why should it be portrayed any differently in a movie? Most of the crew are young and in great shape so why the heck wouldn’t there be some steamy relationships?

    One of the best things is that this also makes Spock a stronger character for “one uping” Kirk. This time it was Spock who got the girl and not Kirk. Honestly, it’s about dang time that Captain James T. “You know I’ve got alien STDs” Kirk didn’t just have his fling and move on. At least we have a glimmer of hope for a long term relationship between Spock and Uhura, when we wouldn’t have had any of that at all between Kirk and Uhura.

    I’m not dissing on Kirk. He’s a 007 type and requires those flings throughout each movie because… well… that’s just Jim.

    In closing I’d like to tell everyone out there who doesn’t like the fact that Spock and Uhura are together NOT TO WORRY…in another 40+ years they’ll have another time hiccup and it will never have happened anyways.

  27. Irony in an irony thread… I’ve noticed how whenever someone has a complaint about “spoiler space”, almost 9 times out of 10 it’s in the context of “If I hadn’t already seen this, it would have been a spoiler…”. If it wasn’t actually “spoiled” for you, you have no cause to complain. Trust me, those who WERE spoiled will be MORE than vocal about it without someone else acting on their behalf.

    (I know what I’m talking about. I myself have been lambasted online for “spoiling” the news that Sheridan destroys a Minbari Cruiser in the B5 film ‘In the Beginning’, something that had already been ancient history to fans of the show for 3 seasons by then…)

  28. The only problem I had with the Spock/Uhura relationship was that it seemed to fly in the face of the “control and suppression of emotions to cold logic” characterization of Spock and other Vulcans. Spock seemed too at ease surrendering to his emotions concerning Uhura, just as he was too willing to fly off the handle when Kirk baited him on the bridge. Of course, now that I think of it, he was quite a bit more emotional in “The Menagerie”, so it might have something to do with his age.

    1. Actually, the problems are probably more along the lines that Spock wouldn’t engage in a relationship with a student. A big ethical no-no if there’s a direct teacher student relationship there.

      It’d be less so if Spock was there strictly as adjunct faculty, working on just the scenario, but getting into a relationship with a student is getting into some shaky territory.

      (Note this goes away if the relationship started on ship; you can hand wave that a lot better…)

      1. I didn’t get the impression that Spock was on faculty. I thought he was operating more in a sort of advisory capacity; at most, a sort of glorified teaching assistant.
        .
        PAD

      2. Ah, wait…if Pike was a fleet captain (which he could be if he was hanging around Earth as much as he did) and Spock was an officer attached to his staff, that gets around everything. Uhuru is attached to Enterprise, but is not initially under Spock or the chain of command. The only conflict comes when Spock’s placed in command, which is an emergency situation anyway….

  29. Ooh. I didn’t even think of Chapel. That would make a nice love triangle. Or quadrangle, if you count ol’ Jim Kirk.

  30. So…do I have this right? At some point early in the Prime Trekverse, Kirk çøçk-blocked Spock from hooking up with Uhura?

    1. Kind of gives “hailing frequencies open” a whole new meaning, huh.
      .
      And again, go look at the scene in the rec room in “Charlie X” during which Uhura sings an impromptu song and flirting with Spock while he is clearly smiling at her. Uhura is the ONLY crew woman in the history of the series that Spock ever smiled at. There was definitely some chemistry there.
      .
      PAD

    2. Not that we know of… I was under the impression that the only thing blocking Spock from hooking up with someone were always his own issues.

      But, off-screen, SHATNER did prevent Spock and Uhura from kissing in Plato’s Stepchildren, as initially planned, by insisting that, if anyone should kiss Nichelle and get the credit for the first interracial kiss, it had to be him, the “star of the show”! Maybe Roberto Orci is a real Spock/Uhura shipper and the transponder kiss was his way of saying “ef you” to Shat. 😉

  32. Spock has smiled at Mudd’s Women (or at least how the women were affecting the crew), Zarabeth (5000 yrs. past) and Leila Kalomi (under spores influence)—just to be nitpickity and all that…

    1. And, though not any sort of romantic outburst, who can forget moment in the original pilot “The Cage” where Spock yells “THE WOMEN!” in surprise when only the female members of a landing party were actually transported off the Enterprise?

  33. It’s true that Spock appeared to be a bit more comfortable with his emotions than in the original timeline. It’d be interesting to speculate how that came to be. The change seemed to come from Sarek being more accepting of his son’s choices this time around.

    But I think it’s silly to say that Spock was too willing to be baited by Kirk. His mother and his planet had just been destroyed. Billions of Vulcans had just been vaporized. If THAT’S what it takes to get an emotional reaction out of Spock, it’s completely understandable. It also shows the emotional turmoil that Vulcans hide on the inside.

    1. In the original pilot, there is a shot of Spock smiling in delight at a plant on Talos IV (it made a noise like a wind chime). This was explained away later by saying that in his earlier years in Starfleet, young Spock was experimenting with his human emotions, and only later decided to embrace his Vulcan heritage almost exclusively.

      Perhaps the screenwriters are even more savvy Trekkies than anyone’s been willing to credit?

      1. There’s been speculation that Spock looked upon Pike as a surrogate father; a few more years under his belt may have moved the equilibrium a tad closer to the human side.

        And I think it’s known that one of the screenwriters is a very solid Trekkie….

  34. I also remember “The Man Trap” where Uhura was basically asking him why he wasn’t using opening lines on her and telling her what Vulcan is like “when the moon is full.”

    As far as Spock’s relationships with women are concerned, anyone remember “This Side of Paradise,” “The Cloud Minders,” “The Enterprise Incident” and “The Omega Glory” where he hypnotizes a Yang woman to get her to activate a communicator? Just because he was a Vulcan it doesn’t mean that he was a monk!

  35. About all that “boo: student-teacher relationship”:
    a. Zach Quinto said in a recent interview “Acting is truthful behavior in imaginary circumstances”. So quit nitpicking, please, and enjoy the story. Or do you want/need a “Kids, don’t try this at home” announcement?
    b. As I see it, both Spock and Uhura are post-graduates (like McCoy, she had a degree (in Xenolinguistics) when she enrolled at Starfleet Academy). And the Vulcan Academy seems to be not an University, but something like the Royal Society. So they are both even more grown up than Kirk et al. She is not a glorified secretary, she’s a scientist.

    I saw the movie twice, and there is a scene that really gains with repeated viewing: when Uhura demands to be posted on the Enterprise. At first viewing, you only see that. The second time around, you know these are lovers quarrelling. And Uhura is so furious – if there were two passionate humans in their places (say, Kirk and whoever) this scene would involve much yelling, stomping of feet and “Sorry, sorry, sorry …”! And the great thing is that Z & Z are actually playing this, in a very subdued way. Delicious acting, and great possibilities for future stories. Let them be together!

  37. “So basically we have a strong black woman in a position of authority with an active sex life…and either she’s a stereotype or anyone who objects to it is a racist.”

    Hmm, that hasn’t been my experience at all.

    Peter, you’ve already gotten into trouble once because of your generalizations about race and wanting SO badly to use the n-word.

    Please, just go get educated. Your legacy is tarnished but you can do something about it.

    1. Hmm, that hasn’t been my experience at all.
      .
      And since that wasn’t your experience, anything I may have seen on line doesn’t count. Got it.
      .
      Peter, you’ve already gotten into trouble once because of your generalizations about race and wanting SO badly to use the n-word.
      .
      No. I got “into trouble” because of distortions and lies about what I said…such as the baseless calumny that I want to be able to use racial epithets, which you just repeated.
      .
      Please, just go get educated. Your legacy is tarnished but you can do something about it.
      .
      Sure I can. I can do exactly what the AG said was wrong: Be a coward and decide that I can discuss anything except race because I’ll risk being smeared and condemned while people who think they know me–and don’t–lie about me and address me in a remarkably condescending manner. That’s quite a choice.
      .
      PAD

      1. And since that wasn’t your experience, anything I may have seen on line doesn’t count. Got it.

        Nope. Actually, you didn’t. You drew a conclusion about where these opinions where coming from based on your own preconceived prejudices on the matter. You didn’t bother to ask.

        You’re *still* not bothering.

        No. I got “into trouble” because of distortions and lies about what I said…such as the baseless calumny that I want to be able to use racial epithets, which you just repeated.

        Nobody distorted anything. You wrote it and it’s on the record. You wrote a post about how hard it was to be white and *not* be able to use the n-word.

        Sure I can. I can do exactly what the AG said was wrong: Be a coward and decide that I can discuss anything except race because I’ll risk being smeared and condemned while people who think they know me–and don’t–lie about me and address me in a remarkably condescending manner. That’s quite a choice.

        You have a habit of drawing conclusions based on what you’d like to infer in lieu of doing the obvious common sense move, which is asking questions.

        *scrolls back to see where I said you should not discuss race*

        Hmm, don’t see that anywhere.

        You *should* discuss it. More people should, but first you need to listen *truly listen* to what those people you presume to speak about, are saying.

        And you shouldn’t make broad generalizations about an *entire* group of people’s varied opinions based on heresay.

        Otherwise you come off entitled and self-righteous (and I’m being generous here).

        This is what you did:

        “Comicbook writers all think this way, because, blah, blah, blah.”

        …And I’m a botanist saying that, who has one or two comicbook writer friends. Now, I can infer all kinds of things about how they *all* think.

        You can easily google points of view from people who surprise, surprise, don’t all think alike.

        I find it very suspect that you’ve reduced and overly-simplified the many opinions on this to:

        Misguided feminists vs. overly-sensitive anti-racists

        Remember, the part where “anyone” is the key word? It still is.

        There are plenty of people who simply like or dislike the pairing for any number of reasons and believe it or not, they belong to both groups.

        Those that show that where they are coming from is based on racism, however, are believed.

        So, most of those opinions are not baseless as you inferred.

      2. DCMovieGirl, I’m curious why you felt you had to come back to this argument after 5 months.

      3. I’m curious how she thinks that “wanting SO badly to use the n-word” and “you wrote a post about how hard it was to be white and *not* be able to use the n-word” are what Peter actually said. I note she does not provide any quotes. Me, if I were to accuse someone of something so reprehensible, I’d probably feel obligated to back it up with facts.

      4. DCMovieGirl: “You drew a conclusion about where these opinions where coming from based on your own preconceived prejudices on the matter. “
        .
        No, the person doing that here is you. You are looking at the words on your computer screen and then changing, removing and adding words in your mind to make statements that were not made.
        .
        Examples –
        .
        DCMovieGirl: “Peter, you’ve already gotten into trouble once because of your generalizations about race and wanting SO badly to use the n-word.”
        ******
        “Nobody distorted anything. You wrote it and it’s on the record. You wrote a post about how hard it was to be white and *not* be able to use the n-word.”
        .
        Well, if he said either of those things and it’s on record than please quote them and source them. Problem is that you can’t because that is not what was said. You simply took what was there and drew a conclusion about the post based on your own preconceived prejudices on the matter and, as in the case of claiming that Peter said he wanted to be able to say a certain word just made stuff up.
        .
        DCMovieGirl: “You have a habit of drawing conclusions based on what you’d like to infer in lieu of doing the obvious common sense move, which is asking questions.
        .
        *scrolls back to see where I said you should not discuss race*
        .
        Hmm, don’t see that anywhere. “
        .
        No, you wouldn’t see it. He never said that you actually said that. He referenced the the thing that started the discussion in the older thread you referenced. That was all. You read into it words that were not there based on your own preconceived prejudices and what you wanted to see there VS what was actually there.
        .
        DCMovieGirl: “I find it very suspect that you’ve reduced and overly-simplified the many opinions on this to:
        .
        Misguided feminists vs. overly-sensitive anti-racists”
        .
        And, again, you let your own preconceived prejudices and determination to be offended no matter what get in the way of your reading comprehension skills.
        .
        Please note what was actually written.
        .
        PAD: “We are seeing a rare head-butting of agendas in various fan discussions of the Spock/Uhura relationship.”
        .
        PAD: “In this corner: those who are declaring that having Uhura involved with Spock turns her into a girl toy and reduces her to an object of sexual desire.”
        .
        PAD: “In the other corner: those who declare that anyone who feels that way is actually uncomfortable with a black woman involved with a white man and is therefore a racist, whether they admit it or not.”
        .
        Please note the key words in there. Various fan discussions have included these two groups with these two POVS. No where did he say that all discussion on the matter was limited to these two opinions. He saw something that is out there in various fan discussions and commented on the silliness of it.
        .
        He’s done it with other topics such as politics all of the time. Strange that you’ve never felt the need to swing by and post little lectures about those observations. Maybe it was because you read those for what they were but with this one, the one that involves a racial component in the argument of one of the groups he is poking fun at, you can’t get past your preconceived prejudices and notions about race.
        .
        DCMovieGirl: “I thought you’d learned that black people aren’t a monolith, by now, but apparently not.”
        .
        Odd statement since five months ago when you and others made that comment in the thread about the AG’s comments you could not cite so much as one line by anyone in that thread who actually said that they felt or thought that all blacks thought or acted as a monolith and odder still now since not only did Peter not say that all of the people who saw the movie and were fine with the pairing were saying that anyone who disliked it were doing so for racial reasons, but he also never said word one about “black people” when he made that post. He simply referenced some fans and a group of fans that are out there.
        DCMovieGirl: “A writer should understand the distinction one word makes, especially here.”
        .
        And he does understand the distinction that one word makes. That however does him precious little good when some people will come by and allow their own preconceived prejudices on the matter to hamper their ability to actually read what was written in the manner it was written and follow that up by adding things in to it that were never written at all.
        .
        About five months ago you swung by and showed that you were more inclined to read what you wanted to be there rather and add your own spin than you were inclined to bother actually reading what was written and, obviously, you’re *still* not bothering.

      5. Hëll, Bill… I’m curious about something else.
        .
        I haven’t seen the user tag “DCMovieGirl” on the board since “Soooo…electing Barack Obama was an act of cowardice?” about eight months ago. I could be wrong. I freely admit that I haven’t looked at every Potato Moon” thread, but I just don’t recall seeing the name since then.
        .
        So the first time she pops back up since complaining about a thread with a component about race in it is to complain about a thread with a component about race in it? What, did the blog get put on a watch list where every time anything is discussed where any aspect of race is involved a poster is notified to come here and burble on about the racism or cluelessness of Peter and/or the posters here?
        .
        Is she just sticking her head in from time to time and just waiting for a thread to pop up that she can jump into and complain about race issues?
        .
        Seriously, either option is kinda pathetic.

      6. Perhaps she is slow of mind.
        .
        (DCmoviegirl–this is what is called a perfect setup. Now just wait about 5 more months and then make a post that says “What do you mean, slow of mind?” The Groo fans will love it.Yes it’s a long way to go for a joke but comedy is hard.)

      7. Wow…
        .
        I actually found out what she’s been doing for all this time. She’s been obsessing about race.
        .
        She has a blog supposedly devoted to movies, movie reviews and a few entertainment related items and almost the entire thing is covered in qn obsessive need to see race in everything and declare racefail and racewin about everything. Hëll, she didn’t even make it through a review of Up without throwing in a race comment.
        .
        Or she’s saying things that just look flat out loopy. She wrote a bit about Jackson passing away earlier this year. This bit was just screwy.
        .
        “I’ve been watching the endless replays of MJ’s music on MTV (the channel that couldn’t deny him, despite his brown skin) …and it finally sunk in. The man who formed the blueprint for modern pop music, the one EVERY pop act in the industry still follows?”
        http://dcmoviegirl.blogspot.com/2009/06/michael.html
        .
        The channel that couldn’t deny him despite his brown skin? MTV, the channel that in the 80’s had a black VJ as one of its original five VJs, regularly aired music videos from other pop stars who were black, promoted rap and had regular chunks of the programing day devoted exclusively to rap and, most importantly here, treated new Michael Jackson projects live events and literally promoted their arrival weeks if not months in advanced was a channel that couldn’t deny him, despite his brown skin?
        .
        Okay, this girl is just someone obsessed with race and apparently obsessed with seeing the treatment of blacks in the worst possible light whenever and where ever she can.
        .
        Not exactly a blog that inspires the idea of her being someone who could have a reasonable discussion on the topic.

      8. I have to defend her on that point, Jerry. MTV was pretty much all white at the beginning, JJ Jackson and a few artists like Prince to the contrary. Me, I would attribute it more to the fact that the early pioneers of music videos were often from the new wave and hard rock type bands which were also mostly white but it was a big deal when they started playing “Billie Jean”. I roll my eyes at her scenario where the MTV execs gnash their teeth while reluctantly playing Jackson (“We cannot deny him! But his skin is so brown! Arrrrgh!”) (“Relax, J.T> Maybe by playing him he will become famous and go perilously insane and transform himself from a brown skin man into a porcelain white anime character.”) (“Johnson…you’re a genius!) but MTV was not, at least initially, very integrated. (though not “all white” as Ms Anonymous suggests)
        .
        I find her later comment the Jackson was “The first person to truly transcend race in a way that was almost godlike.” more hilarious. Jeeze. Get a grip.

      9. Bill, MTV was launched in August of 1981. It was launched as a music video channel, but it was advertised as a <I.Rock Video channel first and foremost. Despite this, just from memory of the acts that I liked, they played Michael Jackson, Prince, Grandmaster Flash, Stevie Wonder, Donna Summer, Lionel Richie, James Brown, The Pointer Sisters, Chaka Khan, Tina Turner, New Edition, Afrika Bambaataa and Shannon amongst others were all played regularly in the first three years of the channels existence. And on a channel that still had the “rock video” label when playing some of them.
        .
        Get into the mid 80’s (more Top 40 acts in rotation) and you get Run DMC, The Fat Boys, Whitney Houston, Aretha Franklin, Eddie ‘Party All the Time” Murphy and others. And there were more. Those are just the ones I remember because I either liked them or, as with Murphy, it was just weird enough to remember.
        .
        By the late 80’s, in less than ten years of existence, MTV had rap and hip hop in its line up and was even devoting programming blocks to it. Yo MTV Raps was launched in 87 or 88.
        .
        Even the oft mentioned fact that Jackson broke the color barrier on MTV with Billie Jean is a myth since several of the artists I mentioned above were all played on MTV before Jackson recorded Billie Jean. Hëll, even the Play ‘Billie Jean’ or else turned out to be more publicity stunt than real conflict.
        .
        MTV was in business for ratings and to make money. Jackson was money and ratings. By the late 80’s the MTV programming people were savvy enough to recognize that rap was a still yet to be fully realized musical genre that would be even bigger in years to come rather than just a hot fad. They saw it as ratings and money and they went with it.
        .
        And, as I said above, Jackson events and new releases were promoted to the moon by MTV throughout the 80’s and the 90’s. This was not a channel that was keeping Jackson at arms length and hoping that no one would notice him until he finally gave up and went away.
        .
        Was MTV’s video rotation much more heavily dominated by white acts in the early days of the network? Yeah, it was. But that (as you referenced yourself) has more to do with the fact that most of the Rock groups, New Wave acts and top 40 acts were white acts. It’s just not as though MTV was standing behind their own version of the Mason-Dixon Line and declaring that they would keep that brown skinned Jackson fellow off of their lily-white network. For someone to throw out a remark like ”the channel that couldn’t deny him, despite his brown skin)” when mentioning MTV and Jackson’s passing (combined with all the other things on her site) just reeks of someone who is borderline obsessed with seeing race in everything and seeing it in the absolute worst possible way.
        .
        That’s what I was pointing to. It’s a bizarre comment and one that only someone who is looking to see the worst in something racially would throw in there. And like I referenced above, she couldn’t even get through a review of Up without throwing a racial remark in there. It’s those kinds of comments that make me wonder if anything said by anyone here would ever convince her that her desire to see racial motivations or insults in posts and threads here is mistaken.

      10. Oh I doubt that anything anyone says could possibly do that. At a certain point you are the person you are. She seems to have way too much invested in the “reality” that people like PAD are racists, what is she going to do, suddenly have an epiphany that she has been denigrating innocent people?
        .
        Actually, I don’t mind someone being fixated on race in movie reviews–they might actually pick up on things someone less fixated would miss and, thus, ášš to one’s appreciation of the film. Reading 4 or 5 of their reviews in a row might get a bit tedious though and they must be really fun to be around but they have their uses. But these attacks on a guy like PAD are really disgraceful and, (ironically, given how they think this is somehow harming his reputation) is something they will have to live with.

      11. The saddest part of it all, Bill, is this one line from her Zombieland review.
        .
        “Y’all know I like zombie movies…”
        .
        The possibility of having another zombie fan floating around to help waste bandwidth with when threads more or less run their course shot to hëll because she’s decided that we’re all racists. Ðámņ it, we could have done with some new blood in those conversations.

      12. Wow, this really came out of nowhere.
        .
        You guys make a valid point about how she doesn’t actually cite any quotes but rather her own interpretations. Then again, I’ve noticed that those with such a mindset are perfectly capable of using exact quotes and then claiming that the words right in front of them mean something entirely different.
        .
        PAD

      13. You guys make a valid point about how she doesn’t actually cite any quotes but rather her own interpretations.
        .
        And God help you if you try to buy the Rams now.

      14. And God help you if you try to buy the Rams now.
        .
        And God help if you deny saying things that can be quoted from sources.

      15. Two things:
        .
        1)Funny how, if the comments Limbaugh made about slavery can be quoted from sources, they never actually were quoted from sources. Certainly not the really incendiary ones, like that slavery built the South and had its merits, or that James Earl Ray deserved a medal. They show up in Jack Huberman’s book 101 People Who are Really Screwing America, but somehow they always appear without citations to where or when he actually said them. In fact, due to the glory that is Google, I found the St Louis Post Dispatch’s retraction of a story quoting those comments:
        .
        Burwell’s column [in the Post Dispatch, allegedly quoting Limbaugh] did not identify the source of the quote, which was Jack Huberman’s 2006 book “101 People Who Are Really Screwing America.” The book provided no details about the origin of the quote. When contacted by the Post-Dispatch, Huberman said that he had a source for the quote but declined to reveal it on advice of counsel. The book’s publisher, Nation Books, did not return calls to the Post-Dispatch.
        .
        I particularly like the part where an attorney is allegedly telling his client not to head off a libel suit by citing the source of a comment he attributed to a public figure. Right.
        .
        Look, I think Limbaugh is a jáçkášš (a conservative Al Franken, if you will), and it wouldn’t completely shock me if he said the first of those two comments (the second one is so boneheaded I can’t imagine even a talk show blowhard saying it), but he’s adamantly denied saying anything of the sort. And for some reason, nobody’s called him on it. Huberman hasn’t gone online or on the news saying “I got that quote from his show on X date” (to the contrary, one of his blogs on the Huffington Post was redacted by the editors because he wouldn’t substantiate the Limbaugh post), and nobody has posted a Youtube video or mp3 of him saying it. This is a statement that should be readily verifiable to completely bust Limbaugh, yet it hasn’t been. I would be highly interested in seeing evidence that Limbaugh said something that incredibly insensitive (if for no other reason than that it could imply Limbaugh has been reading Edmund S Morgan, which would be shocking), but none is forthcoming.
        .
        He did actually say something to the effect of an NFL game sometimes resembling the Crips and Bloods without weapons. So it’s not like you really need to make stuff up to make this guy look bad. And yet there’s a strong probability that somebody did.
        .
        2) Out of nowhere PAD was accused of saying something insensitive quite some time ago, which PAD never actually said. I tried to draw a parallel with someone who was in the news recently for allegedly saying something racially insensitive quite some time ago, that he didn’t actually say (pending evidence to the contrary). I made a joke, dude. Lighten up.

      16. Putting the word conservative in front of the name Al Franken creates a true oxymoron. There can never be such a thing as a conservative Al Franken, as trying to change him into a conservative makes him no longer Al Franken. There are no calm, sane, rational conservatives.

      17. There are no calm, sane, rational conservatives
        .
        I don’t think even I would go that far, Alan. There are guys I bowl with who can’t stand Obama, who are avid hunters, who are even (oy) Yankees fans. I wouldn’t describe any of them as insane or irrational, and when it comes to calm, I’m easily the most excitable of the bunch (especially when I keep leaving corner pins.)
        .
        If you’re referring to the world of television/radio pundits, I’ll certainly concur that the frothing idiots seem to dominate. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that rational conservatives don’t exist, because I’m friends with some of them.
        .
        PAD

      18. There are no calm, sane, rational conservatives.
        .
        I think it’s irrational in the extreme to believe that one side of the ideological spectrum has a lock on rationality, morality, or any other virture. While I disagree passionately with some of David the Bold’s ideas, he presents as someone who is quite rational.
        .
        (I can’t know for sure what he’s like away from the keyboard, of course. But if I had to bet money I’d place my bet on him being a stable and mentally healthy individual.)
        .
        There’s no reason why people of different political persuasions can’t learn to respect each other. I’m quite the lefty in many respects. Yet I have lived for the last eight years with a woman who holds many conservative views, although she’s moved to the left on issues like healthcare. (God forbid that people mix-and-match ideas from different points on the political spectrum! The End Is Near!) Bill Mulligan is quite the conservative in many respects, yet he is one of my closest friends.
        .
        The trick is to acknowledge that we’re all limited, we’re all flawed, and we’re all doing the best we can in a reality that throws more at us than our minds our equipped to handle. We’re all coming to conclusions about the world that are probably tenuous at best in the greater scheme of things.
        .
        Mind you, I’m not abandoning my liberal principles because, tenuous as they may be in the larger scheme, they still strike me as the best conclusions to draw on the basis of what I know. I’m guessing David feels the same way about his conservative principles. So, as much as he and I disagree, we share at least that much in common.
        .
        Besides, the “us vs. them” approach to political discourse is intellectually lazy. It substitutes regurgitated talking points and ad hominem attacks for real thought.

      19. Sure it’s lazy but thinking is hard. Arguing is hard. Having to defend a point of view carries the risk of losing. Better, and far easier, to simply believe that anyone who opposes you is crazed, insane and irrational, which would make you–if only in comparison–calm, sane and rational.
        .
        I suppose we could try to convince him otherwise but upon calm, considered reflection, it doesn’t seem worth the effort.
        .
        “You can train a rat. Yes, if you work for hours and days and months and years, you can train a rat. But when you’re done, all you’ll have is a trained rat!” Brother Theodore (Gottleib)

    2. You *should* discuss it. More people should, but first you need to listen *truly listen* to what those people you presume to speak about, are saying.
      .
      If you are holding yourself up as an example, then I have to say that you have made it abundantly clear you are not *truly listening* to anything I’ve said, but rather obsessed only about your (re)interpretations.
      .
      This would seem to stem from your one-note view of the world. You’re so desperate to slag me about matters of race that you have to attack me about a topic that hasn’t been discussed for nearly half a year. Meanwhile, unless I missed it, you’re mute on the plethora of topics that have been discussed on this board.
      .
      What I thought most intriguing was the assertion you made on your site that discussion of race relations typically go as follows: 1) Blacks try to talk about race; 2) Whites believe that they’re being accused of being racists and take offense; 3) Nothing gets done.
      .
      What makes it intriguing is that my experience was as follows: 1) I tried to talk about race; 2) Blacks showed up by the carload on this site to accuse me of being a racist and also did so on their own websites; 3) Nothing got done except for my name being tossed on a blacklist (love that name) of writers to avoid because they’re racists.
      .
      But you contend that race SHOULD be discussed. And the incentive for whites to do so is what, exactly? Especially given the DISincentives.
      .
      PAD

      1. Wow. This is from last year, but I got curious and checked back. I had no idea it had set off a mini-thread. 😛

        Hah, nobody cares anymore, but WTH? Why not?

        As to some of the points within:

        -If you’ve seen old footage of Micheal’s concerts with European girls fainting, crying, and holding their hands up and especially the fascist imagery he routinely used, in his ‘Bad’ years, yup that’s godlike. It ain’t hyperbole.

        -Discussing racism doesn’t = I think everyone is racist.

        For the record, I didn’t come to stir up the pot and then leave. I was linked here, said my two cents, forgot about it and came back.

        Hah, nobody cares anymore, but why not?

        …Just in case you do.

        To answer your question, I didn’t call you a racist. I said you said unintentionally racist things. Which most people do. That’s the way of world.

        Your reaction to people questioning this is why you were blacklisted.

        As for the specific quote citations you requested?

        Here:

        “I mean, what should we discuss? Racial epithets that whites can only refer to as “the N word” whereas blacks use the term routinely in rap songs?”

        Bill Maher just recently used the word ņìggër to illustrate a point.

        There was an attempt to make this a big deal, but most postings from black people have been somewhere along the lines of “WTF?! If he had said ‘n-word’, the impact of his point would have been diminished. THIS IS A NON-ISSUE.”

        …And the folks who were trying to make it an issue? The media. Not black activists.

        Seriously, google Bill Maher, ņìggër, Larry King.

        In other words, context matters.

        Would you complain about men not being able to say bìŧçh just because two girlfriends use it as an ironic term of endearment for each other?

        …What would you think of the guy who did?

        If you use either term in the wrong context, someone will likely call it as such.

        As for this:

        “And the incentive for whites to do so is what, exactly?”

        I’m black. If I even mention the word racism around white people, often eyes are rolled and whoever is being addressed goes into immediate dismissal-mode.

        I don’t bother in my real-life. It’s not worth the headache.

        If I say a particular act is racist, regardless of whether there is merit in it or not, I’m overreacting.

        And I labeled a trouble-maker. The kind of black person that stirs things up for white people and makes them uncomfortable.

        Any original point I had about what happened that was racist and šhìŧŧÿ is forgotten.

        The bigger wrong is making white people uncomfortable for having talked about it.

        That’s just the way it is.

        If it makes you feel any better, the incentive for blacks to talk about it, because it hurts and sucks for us so much that we need to vent and hope people will change their behavior, if we just say what bothers us…

        …ALWAYS comes with the de-incentive that the pain of it will likely be multiplied by denial and accusations of overreaction.

        This pain is compounded when the well-meaning white person they risk opening themselves to point out how black people make this problem for themselves.

        Which was the biggest aspect of your first subsequent follow-up post on the matter, that stood out to me and likely why people blacklisted you.

        It’s akin to basically understanding that “You know maybe you shouldn’t wear short-short skirts” isn’t the best response to someone who has just been assaulted.

        If you want to specifically talk about issues within “the black race” which seems to be the gist of what your posts were about, don’t frame it from the perspective of one who’s complaining that they can’t say ņìggër but rappers can.

        And don’t assume visible and/or vocal black culture represents ALL, or even the majority of black culture.

        -DCM

      2. “fainting, crying, and holding their hands up and especially the fascist imagery” equals “godlike”. Gotcha. (backs away slowly)
        .
        So instead of claiming Peter is a racist you are merely claiming that he is just like everyone else, a guy who says unintentionally racist things. It’s just the fact that he doesn’t agre3e with that which makes him worthy of blacklisting. Got it.
        .
        But for what he said to be racist you would have to prove that “I mean, what should we discuss? Racial epithets that whites can only refer to as “the N word” whereas blacks use the term routinely in rap songs?” means that he (Peter) WANTS to be able to say the N word. Which he has repeatedly said he does not. Would seem to me that the onus is on you to prove him a liar but it’s unlikely you would take the risk of being proven wrong (I mean, how would that feel? To know you did that to someone? Better to assume the worst of him and keep on being the hero of your own story.)
        .
        But rest assured most of us have had lots of contact with people of many other races, only a tiny tiny percentage of whom act like you. So your ignoble qualities are not in any way to be considered typical. You say you get eye rolls? Small surprise.
        .
        And it’s too bad because you are smart and like zombies and are an above average writer. But your actions here are really dishonorable.

  38. In the other corner: those who declare that anyone who feels that way is actually uncomfortable with a black woman involved with a white man and is therefore a racist, whether they admit it or not.

    *sigh*

    I thought you’d learned that black people aren’t a monolith, by now, but apparently not.

    Also, those I’ve read? Haven’t said “anyone”. A writer should understand the distinction one word makes, especially here.

    1. I thought you’d learned that black people aren’t a monolith, by now, but apparently not.
      .
      Funny: I never said anything about black people. I said “groups” and “those.” I made no attempt to ascribe skin color because it would have been impossible to do so. Might have been blacks. Might have been a mix of blacks and Latinos and Hispanics and Native Americans. Might have been (gasp!) whites mixed in. No more reason to assume blacks were complaining about race than there was to assume women were complaining about sexism. You are the one who decided to make presumptions about peoples’ skin color based upon their opinions. What are you saying: that if someone registers this complaint, they have to be black because only blacks would care?
      .
      Be careful: If you make such sweeping assumptions, people might think you’re a racist. They might call for boycotts or put your name on black lists…presuming they knew who you were.
      .
      PAD

  40. Moviegirl, another in an apparently long line of anonymous cowards.
    .
    What’s the John Gabriel greater internet Dickwad Theory again? Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Dickwad

      1. Yes, the Internet Dickwad Theory is alive and well. And Captain Irony will be going strong as well for decades to come.
        .
        My observations on Internet cowards lead me to the following conclusion, which I mentioned on Facebook this morning: “I need to stop reading comments in response to stories on news sites. It just leaves me feeling dumber as a person and generally ashamed of the human race as a whole.”

  41. Btw, PAD, since I don’t know where else to put this, but after making posts, as well as when viewing entries on Kathleen’s site, I’m getting this warning from Google about your site being bad for me to view:
    .
    “Reported Attack Site!
    This web site at kathwp.malibulist.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences.
    .
    Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.
    .
    Some attack sites intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.”
    .
    I’m not sure if somebody is being spiteful or if this is a genuine mistake, but it’s rather annoying. I’m also not sure why the smeg I’m getting this from Google, as I link to your site directly. 😛

  42. A lot of people are missing so many details of what this relationship means in the context of the movie, as well as TOS canon. I’m surprised that more people don’t know that Gene Roddenberry himself wanted this relationship from the get go. But with it being the 60’s and what not (racism, prejudice, etc)…well. They didn’t even want Nichelle Nicholes on the show, so this relationship never had a chance in TOS. They did keep subtleties of the relationship in tact as has been mentioned in the episodes “Man Trap”, and “Charlie X”. But people are forgetting other episodes as well. Such as when Spock reacts to Nomad when he wipes out Uhura’s memory. He became very agitated when Nomad referred to her as a “unit”. Spocks reply: that “unit” is a woman. In “Space Seed” when one of Khan’s henchmen slaps Uhura for not abeying his orders; look at who’s the first one to jump up with Bones a close second. Spock was jumping to her defense, and it’s important to note that he was in full Spock mode by then (as well as the aforementioned episodes). Also the episode “Is There in Truth No Beauty?”. The Madusen ambassador addresses three of the crew members as Spock knows them:

    Spock: This is delightful! I know you! All of you!

    James Kirk, captain and friend for many years.

    And Leonard McCoy [affectionate laughter], also of long acquaintance.

    And Uhura, whose name means “freedom.” She walks in beauty like the night.

    McCoy: [to Kirk] That’s not Spock!

    Spock: Are you surprised to find that I’ve read Byron, doctor?

    The Medusen was addressing each relationship as Spock see’s these individuals. So now we know that he reads poetry in regards to her.

    The other episode(s) is “The Immunity Syndrome”. When Uhura almost faints because of a high pitched frequency that resonates all over the ship causing multiple crewmates to become ill; look at who grabs her to take her to her seat. Spock is so concerned, that after he sits her down (after her brief conversation with the captain), that he stands over her for a few seconds with much concern in his face. In another episode “Who Mournes for Adonais” I believe; Uhura is asked by Spock to do some repairs to the communications console. Spock tells her that he can think of no one more qualified to do the job than her. This is very high praise coming from a Vulcan. There are multiple instances all throughout the series where is this relationship is definitely canon; but people obviously missed it.

    Fast forward to this new Star Trek……..

    Let’s start with the reassignment of Uhura from the Faragut to the Enterprise. This is where you first get the knowledge that this is a mutual attraction relationship in some form. Look at Spocks face when he turns to face her when she states:

    Uhura: Where you were well aware of my desires to serve on the Enterprise; I’m assigned to the Farragut?

    (Hint no.1: She’s very angry, and he’s “well aware” of what she wants to do with her career).

    Spock: “It was an attempt to…….. (he stopped talking and paused to keep the passing crewman from hearing their converstion. He breaks eye contact with Uhura until the crewmen passes)…..avoid the appearance of favoritism”. The favoritism concern could only mean that he has displayed too much emotion regarding her if other people know that he “favors” her. But she refuses to be punished for his favoritism/attraction. She is the best in her field so she “deserves” to be put on the best ship.

    Uhura: “No; I’m assigned to the Enterprise”.

    Spock behaved like the typical human male in that he didn’t want to upset his woman. So he caves in. He obviously has some feelings about Uhura that transends his Vulcan stoicism.

    *Next: When Kirk, McCoy, and Uhura runs on the bridge to see what Kirk is about to reveil regarding the lightening storm in space; Spock is not going for Kirk’s story until Uhura gets involved. Look how long he stares in her direction before his gaze rejoins Kirk and Captian Pike in the discussion. He also takes the opportunity to reiterate to Capt. Pike how good she is as a Xenolingist.

    *Uhura leaves her station to inquire of Spock where he’s going when he tells her he’s beaming to Vulcan to rescue his parents and the council. In the mist of the turmoil, he actually pauses to explain to her what his intensions are. Look at her eyes as the turbolift doors close.

    *After Vulcan is destroyed, Uhura is staring at him because she knows he is hurting. When she follows him to the turbolift, we get the first sure fire knowledge of what’s going on between them for those who didn’t catch the other stuff beforehand. This wasn’t their first kiss. Look at him the second time she kisses him. It is actually him that leans into her and prolongs the kiss as she’s pulling away.

    *After the fight scene with Spock and Kirk (look at her face when that fight is going on, and the compassion she displays as she follows him to the door. Look at him when he pauses to look at her), and Spock rejoins everyone on the bridge. When he states “also my mother was human (he’s looking at everyone when he say’s this), which means earth is the only home I have left”. Right when he says “earth is the only home I have left, he pulls his eyes to her. That’s right folks; he’s picked a mate. He plans on making earth his home with her. The transporter room scene is self explanatory. He knows he may not come back (even though he reassures her that he will), so why not at least let her know something of how he feels? Also; look at the way they bring their forheads together. This seems to be some kind of bonding action between them. His voice is more tender and loving in this scene, and he is most definitely kissing her back. Also we can not forget the scene where he thought he wasn’t going to make it back. In that instance he didn’t say Jim tell my father……….. he said “please” tell lieutenant Uhura……….. He was not going to let the woman he loves and cares deeply about not know of his feelings as I’m sure part of his turmoil regarding his mother’s death is that he most likely never told his mother these words, (and in his mind), she died without knowing. He was not going to take that chance with Uhura.

    This is a deep relationship between the two characters. I think it’s a great idea, and it adds so much depth, complexity, and beauty to these characters. Spock and Uhura’s character’s always deserved more than what has been done with them previously, and I hope Abrams and co. moves forward with this relationship.

    1. “He became very agitated when Nomad referred to her as a “unit”. Spocks reply: that “unit” is a woman.”
      .
      Actually, when Nomad said that the unit (Uhura) was irrational (or however he phrased it) and Spock replied “that unit is a woman”, it sounded more than a bit sexist, as if to say “well of course she’s irrational. How could she be otherwise? By the very fact of her gender, she’s incapable of being either rational or logical.” I didn’t get any sense from that scene that Spock had any special relationship with her, or was speaking in support of her in some way.
      .
      Rick

    2. This is a really good post with a lot of excellent points! People, take note ;).

    3. Beautiful recap, i really feel the heart of it all. Im in love with this pair and i hope they end up together in the end!

    5. Alas I must second everything you just said, but only add, that in the Naked Time, we see Spock was definitely concerned about how his mother dealt with living on Vulcan, and never hearing an I love you. He still hasn’t said it to Uhura in the movie, but the implication is, with the death of his mother in this timeline, he is likely far more open to, at least with a potential mate or lover, being more emotionally available especially if she is human.

      And just for the record, though off topic, I would like to point out that Spock actually cried in one of the movies- was is the Motion Picture?? And people are actually freaking out about how emotional he is in this movie where his mother and home planet are destoryed??

  43. woah? where dd my post go?? anyways i just wanted to say to JPT010 that i loved your description of the Cpock/uhura pairing and why it is so wonderful and significant. I really hope these two end up together in the end!

  44. JPT010 has hit the nail on the head. Awesome analysis. Live long and prosper, Sphura. I love the character development of these two.

  45. JPT010 your recap had me in tears. So romantic and so beautifully put.

    I only disagree with one thing – in my opinion the romance scenes between Spock & Uhura illustrate that gratuitous sex scenes does not = true romantic scene. This couple was so hot – all we saw was a few chaste kisses and gentle embraces– and WHEUUUW – most of us are still blown away.

    Would only like to see their relationship on screen if it remains classy and left more to the imagination than visualized. Any opinions?

  46. David,
    “2) Out of nowhere PAD was accused of saying something insensitive quite some time ago, which PAD never actually said. I tried to draw a parallel with someone who was in the news recently for allegedly saying something racially insensitive quite some time ago, that he didn’t actually say (pending evidence to the contrary). I made a joke, dude. Lighten up.””
    He doesn’t know HOW to lighten up, David. He comes across on this board as an extremely frustrated person with a pretty negative view of most things, including his country, is ready to believe the worst about conservatives no matter the evidence and likes to regurgitate liberal talking points and think he’s actually arguing his positions successfully bt doing so.

    Alan,
    “Putting the word conservative in front of the name Al Franken creates a true oxymoron. There can never be such a thing as a conservative Al Franken, as trying to change him into a conservative makes him no longer Al Franken. There are no calm, sane, rational conservatives.”
    So you think Franken is calm, sane and rational. But NO conservatives are? Not George Will? What, exactly, is your standard?

    PAD,
    “If you’re referring to the world of television/radio pundits, I’ll certainly concur that the frothing idiots seem to dominate. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that rational conservatives don’t exist, because I’m friends with some of them.”
    While I applaud your admission that rational conservatives do exist, I feel the idea that the “frothing idiots seem to dominate” the world of conservative TV/radio pundits is a bit overplayed.
    First, because there are examples like George Will, who even if you don’t agree with him can hardly be described as a “shouter” and is actually quite intellectual. Buckley was similar in this way, and his impact was huge.
    Next, there are “moderate” voices like Juan Williams, Mort Kondracke, etc. who are hardly fire breathers and actually agree with Democrats/liberals on certain things.
    A step up from them you have committed conservatives like Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes. I have yet to see or hear either man really raise his voice and even if you don’t agree with them, they present their arguments rationally and intelligently.
    Then there are the passionate individuals like mark levin whose book has sold over 1 million copies. Firm, not frothing.
    Next are the Hannitys and O’Reilly’s, who really aren’t as harsh as people make them out to be. Hannity is more rigid on ideology, and he can be tough, buy I wouldn’texavtly call him frothing.
    Then we have the true verbal bomb throwers – Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, etc. However, even in the case of Coulter, she does do a lot of research and has a bit more humor than Savage, who has a lot of anger.
    Then, of course, there is Glenn Beck, who is basically a category unto himself at this point. And say what you will, he asks a lot of basic questions I wish others in the media would ask. basic Who? What? When? Where? Why?
    So the way I see it, the “screamers” do not dominate the conservative landscape nearly as much as it would seem. And you know what? When we’re talking about war and some really serious issues, I WANT people to be passionate. I don’t always want it to be the type of debate you’d have at an art gallery. People should be at least as passionate about these issues as a College Football analyst is for the Alabama-Florida game, for crying out loud.

    2. “When we’re talking about war and some really serious issues, I WANT people to be passionate.”

      Yet when Democrats spoke against going to war, no matter how politely they stated their opinion, you and your ilk called them traitors.

      1. Yet when Democrats spoke against going to war, no matter how politely they stated their opinion, you and your ilk called them traitors.
        .
        “Unpatriotic.” That was my favorite accusation. Questioning your leaders was unpatriotic.
        .
        PAD

      2. Yet when Democrats spoke against going to war, no matter how politely they stated their opinion, you and your ilk called them traitors.
        .
        Too few of the Democrats spoke out, Alan. Both parties were largely complicit in making a (literally) bloody mess of Iraq.
        .
        Also, I’ve noticed that no matter how respectfully people state their disagreements with Obama, you respond with a knee-jerk cry of “racist!” How can you not see the similarity between that and the knee-jerk response from some on the right of questioning dissenters’ patriotism?

      3. When did Jerome do that? Quotes, please.
        .
        As opposed to,say, Nancy pelosi, who one can find exact quotes for; “I thought it was very unpatriotic of them not to show up, not to show up, in some ways, boycott the meetings earlier in the week,” (this was about a meeting that apparently the unpatriotic republicans were not invited to, according to Chris Dodd.
        .
        But you say that Jerome used the same language and while I like Jerome I am fully willing to call him on the carpet for it. So please, provide those quotes. You’ll forgive me if I fail to take your word on it.

      4. Bill Myers said:
        .
        “Also, I’ve noticed that no matter how respectfully people state their disagreements with Obama, you respond with a knee-jerk cry of “racist!””
        .
        No. I said that much of the Obama hatred was based on racism. That I state this often does not mean I am calling any specific poster here a racist. But I will state that I think both Insanity and Limpburger are racists.

      5. I said that much of the Obama hatred was based on racism.
        .
        Actually, you’ve characterized just about any *disagreement* with Obama as stemming from racism. You’ve also recently accused “David the Bold” of hating Obama in response to some very temperate criticism David had for Obama.
        .
        Again, how can you not see that you are the mirror image of what you claim to despise?

      6. And in the very next post after that, you accused David the Bold of beating his wife.
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .

      7. And in the very next post after that, you accused David the Bold of beating his wife.
        .
        I was being sarcastic, Alan. I asked him, “When did you stop beating your wife?” I was making a point about the unfairness of your asking David, “Why do you hate Obama?” I’m betting most people got what I was driving at, and those that didn’t were being deliberately obtuse.

      8. Oh, I wasn’t being deliberately obtuse. I got your sarcasm. Why didn’t you get mine? Mine was my quoting of your “accusation”.
        .
        And my post of “Why do you hate Obama?” was tongue-in-cheek.

      9. And my post of “Why do you hate Obama?” was tongue-in-cheek.
        .
        Alan, I’m sorry, but life’s too short to engage in a game of “gotcha.” I’d hoped this wasn’t the case, but clearly you’re more interested in the act of arguing than the purpose behind it. I’m going to ignore you and your posts in the future. Nevertheless, I do wish you all the best.

      10. I’m sorry you feel that way.
        .
        You accused me of calling other posters racists. I did not.
        .
        Has it come to the point where only Bill Myers and Bill Mulligan can have an opinion on this board? I mean, I know you guys are friends in real life. Are you teaming up to drive away the people who disagree with you?

      11. Wow, for someone who can dish it out, you sure can’t take it. The mark of a bully.
        .
        I note no reply to my request you provide evidence of Jerome having called people traitors for politely opposing the Iraq war. A better man would provide it. Or apologize.
        .
        In no way shape or form did I ever attempt to drive away people with other opinions, which would require losing pretty much everyone, including some good friends. I just asked for some evidence to support your own accusation against someone. If that makes you want to leave what does it say about you?

      12. Guys? I find it a bit distressing that one poster with an agenda showed up out of nowhere after six months, stirred the pot a little, vanished again, and left you guys arguing over stuff. Somewhere she’s off having the last laugh, is all I’m saying.
        .
        It just seems kind of wasteful to me.
        .
        PAD

      13. Bah! I’m bookmarking this one. And then, some months from now, when it’s least expected… 😉

      17. I think I’d be a bit more impressed if she did something other than this one-note hit-and-run stuff. When you consider the vast array of topics this board covers, I think it’s unfortunate and limiting when someone pops in on an annual basis, goes off on their one pet topic, and vanishes. If she hung out and actually contributed to something else, I’d be more inclined to give consideration to her opinions. As it is, she just comes across as someone who uses the open nature of this board to come in hurling around accusations, mostly in order to pick a fight. I’m disinclined to accommodate her.
        .
        PAD

  47. I find it a bit distressing that one poster with an agenda showed up out of nowhere after six months, stirred the pot a little, vanished again, and left you guys arguing over stuff.
    .
    Point taken.
    .
    On a lighter note, this thread that would not die is resembling the zombies that Jerry Chandler and Bill Mulligan find so entertaining.

  48. When we’re talking about war and some really serious issues, I WANT people to be passionate.
    .
    I don’t think too little passion in the media has been a problem for a long, long time. I think the problem is too much passion and too little thought.
    .
    I think David Brooks and Peggy Noonan should be at the top of any list of good conservative pundits. Both of them are extremely thoughtful, and Brooks is quite willing to acknowledge when “the other side” has a point. As a liberal, I can appreciate the quality of their reasoning and their ability to express their thinking even when I disagree with their conclusions.
    .
    I like George Will but I think he’s a notch below them. He often couches lazy thinking in eloquent prose, and resorts to dismissing opposing ideas as “ditzy” (a word he overuses, frankly).
    .
    One of the highlights of my Friday nights (and my girlfriend is sadly shaking her head as I write this) is watching the conservative David Brooks and the liberal Mark Shields do their weekly point-counterpoint on The John Lehrer News Hour. The two of them cast aside their biases to the extent that that’s possible and do a reasoned analysis of the week’s political news. No shouting, name-calling, or unnecessarily incendiary stuff. Rather than inflaming emotion, they provoke thought.

    1. I like George Will but I think he’s a notch below them. He often couches lazy thinking in eloquent prose, and resorts to dismissing opposing ideas as “ditzy” (a word he overuses, frankly).

      Um. Used to think that, but when I found out that he was outright lying on several points about global warming, I found I couldn’t trust him at all on anything. If you keep saying Source A said Statement B, and keep saying it after Source A said, no we mean the exact opposite, I don’t think you deserve anyone’s trust.

  49. PAD,
    “You have me interested until you started offering up excuses for Hannity and then lost me from there.
    Sorry about that. But I don’t feel I was making excuses. I only started watching Fox News in 2004 and I kept hearing how Hannity would “rip people’s heads off who disagree with him” and have actually only seen him be rude to one guest – Ted Rall, who hardly is a shrinking violet himself.
    But I’ve seen him interview everyone from black racists who don’t like black men dating other races to Michael Moore just this past month and have never seen him be vicious. Obstinate? A true believer? yes and yes. But not vicious.

    Bill Mulligan,
    Thanks for having my back.

    Alan Coil,
    “Yet when Democrats spoke against going to war, no matter how politely they stated their opinion, you and your ilk called them traitors.”
    Please show me where I have done so. Politely arguing a case against war in not unpatriotic – especially beforehand. But to vote for the war and/or then focus on Abu Ghraib for a month without spending even a good week citing or interviewing or acknowledging those who appreciate our efforts – well, it seems at the very least many are determined to view this country in a negative light, and in many of those cases the actions and words – comparing our soldiers to Pol Pot, etc, – ARE pretty unpatriotic. But I view it on a case by case basis.

    Roger Tang,
    “Um. Used to think that, but when I found out that he was outright lying on several points about global warming, I found I couldn’t trust him at all on anything.”
    Well, I think in the next few years we’re going to find a lot of people were outright lying about global warming – starting with Al Gore.
    “

  50. Bill Myers,
    I’m a big Peggy Noonan fan.David Brooks, not so much. It seems a lot of times he is trying to make sure liberals like him when he is on TV. Your mileage may vary.

Comments are closed.