December 29: The Wrath of Khan
Today’s movie watching was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
My overall impression versus TMP is that this is clearly a smoother and more consistently entertaining film. It has a definite story with very little filler, good pacing, a lot of great little dialogue and character moments, and a strong conflict at its center.
But its sci fi bona fides are much weaker. Like by a lot.
Mom and I are talking a bit about Genesis and the more we talk, the weaker it appears to me. First, it’s not really as believable, imo, as a lot of Star Trek. Maybe it’s because it’s not alien based, but I just have a harder time suspending disbelief to think this is possible. Second, it’s not clear why anyone thought this was a good idea. I mean, as McCoy immediately pointed out, it just seems so CLEARLY dangerous: an object meant to foster creation that could so easily be the worst weapon the universe has ever known--nothing could go awry there! Third, the reason for creating such a device isn’t obvious at all. Carol mentions the “growing population” and “food scarcity” but nothing we’ve ever seen of the Federation implies they’re running out of space. Or, frankly (Tarsus IV aside), food. And fourth, there really isn’t any point to Genesis in all its particulars in this film. Like, obviously, its actual purpose is a plot device to resurrect Spock. Within just this film, it doesn’t do anything. Khan wants it, for some reason I’ve already forgotten even though I just saw the film, and he gets it, but I didn’t even notice that happening, because it was so unimportant. His REAL mission is his single minded revenge fantasy on Kirk. Genesis is just a McGuffin/space filler/plot device for the next film.
And honestly that’s not such a big deal, except that when you compare it to TMP, ,and its central idea of a human made probe that gained so much knowledge, doing what we taught it to do, that it became sentient and then started searching for the meaning of life, and how this relates to the search for meaning experienced by the main alien lead, and how his search, in that film and throughout the series, is a mirror for humans and OUR need for purpose... well it just seems really weak. “We made this really dangerous and unrealistic thing for no reason whoops!”
Mom is now criticizing Kirk for being too slow on the uptake when he first encounters the Reliant, which is fair. That’s pretty OOC of him. The idea that he’s too old for space is both one that I must personally disregard, and one that the film would have you discard, since we’ve already heard from TWO characters, the people who know him best, that his best destiny is as a starship captain, and command is his proper role. And that he might be a little rusty is also not a great explanation imo, because the rust was supposed to have come off in TMP. So, plot hole probably.
We were trying to do some math--TMP is at least 2 years post 5YM and TWOK is at least 10 years post TMP, so at least 8 years post TMP. I can understand more rust growing but like... he was already an Admiral in TMP and the idea that he was out of practice with actual command was a big part of his arc there. So it doesn’t seem warranted to do that again.
Also, the way he was commanding poorly in TMP was very IC: he was pushing too hard, trying too much, caring too much about the mission and not enough about...the laws of physics. That’s very Kirk. Being slow on the uptake, caught with his britches down--that’s not Kirk. Plus, with no one to call him out on it, like Decker did in TMP, his poor command doesn’t seem like a big character obstacle to overcome but just like...sloppiness all around.
I thought Khan was over all... just not that interesting. I guess I’m just not into the obsession/revenge plot. Also...idk man he didn’t seem that super to me. He outsmarted Kirk, like, once, and Kirk outsmarted him like 4 times. He tortured some people--but regular humans can do that. He used those sandworm thingies, which is also something humans could do. Overall, he didn’t seem to have any particularly special skills. The only time he really seemed like a worthy adversary for Kirk was when Kirk wasn’t really being IC himself.
I’m also not into the fridging of his wife. Think how much cooler it would have been if she’d still been alive! The only non-super human in the bunch and she’s still there! Ex-Starfleet and bitter!
The K/S in this film is very soothing. Imo they are clearly together here, and the whole film is better if you assume they’re boyfriends and everyone knows. That Vulcan convo that Spock and Saavik have? Waaaaay funnier if you think she’s talking about his boyfriend (”not what I expected....very human” “Well no one’s perfect”). Every time they call each other ‘friend’ like ““friend”“? All the Looks? The birthday gift?
Also the “I have been and always shall be your [friend]” scene is a wedding I will not be taking criticism on this opinion. Could it have been written more like a vow? I think not. It’s not quite This Simple Feeling but it’s the best this film has in that regard.
I liked Saavik and I do think she’s one of the better later-movie additions (though I only like her, as far as I can remember, when played by Kirstie Alley). She didn’t necessarily strike me as super alien, though, at least not at first... But I appreciated how persistent she was about the stupid test, and her regulation quoting. I enjoyed her. I also liked how she was obviously Spock’s protege, which makes her Kirk’s step-protege, and they had just a little bit of that awkward dynamic going on. (”Did you change your hair?”)
The Bones and Kirk relationship was great in this film. You can really feel their friendship and their history with each other. Bones knows him so well and can be honest with him, just when Kirk needs it most.
I also love how Kirk has the SAME conversation with both Bones and Spock (re: being a captain again) but with Spock it’s sooooo much flirtier. In case you weren’t sure what the difference in these two relationships is.
Bonus: this bit of dialogue: Spock: “Be careful, Jim.” / Bones: “WE will.” Lol Spock people who aren’t your boyfriend do exist.
Obviously, I cried during THAT scene. Honestly AOS should have taken note about how to do emotional scenes like that: they come after the main action is over and the villain is defeated. Then they hit at the right time and to the right degree. Kirk just slumping down after Spock dies....like he’s boneless...like he doesn’t know what to do... I CANNOT.
I feel so bad for him that I’ll even forgive him that awful eulogy. Spock died for Genesis? Uh, no, he died for the Enterprise, and for YOU. Spock is the “most human”? You shut your whoreson mouth
I remember hating both Carol and David but I actually hated them less this time, Carol especially. My mom is being really harsh about her, though, which makes me feel less confident in my assessment. I mean first off, she’s the inventor of Genesis, which is a pretty big strike against her. Second...pretty lame to keep Kirk from David. Although I did some vague math and Kirk would only have been about 21, still in the Academy, when David was born, so you can see how that would work out. Also, she distinctly says “Were we together?” which means they were not--this was a fuck buddy arrangement for sure. More complicated. But it still feels weird to retcon that, like, he’s known THIS WHOLE TIME that he’s a dad and we’re only learning about it now, as an audience.
Anyway I’m getting off track. Carol. What to make of her? Is she unstable? Is she still mad at Kirk? My mom points out that she just decided on her own that David would want to join Starfleet if he knew Kirk was his father--whereas what seems to have happened instead is he didn’t just become a civilian scientist like his mom but became her specific protege--working on a project where everyone was probably handpicked by her? I would assume? Also..he hates Starfleet. Not to put everything on the mom, but how did that happen?
Also...going down the rabbit hole of this and feeling awkward about it... but David KNEW Kirk. As “that guy you hung around with.” That means Kirk was in his life for quite a while, long enough for him to have memories, and long enough for those memories to still be with him even into his 20s. But he was never allowed to know who Kirk was. That means Carol’s rule must have been “You can see your son but you can’t tell him who you are” which in some way seems meaner to me than just “please don’t contact us again.” If he was already on his way into space, that could even make sense--”I know you’re not going to be able to be a family with us, so let’s not pretend, let’s make a clean break now.” But that wasn’t what happened!
Anyway whatever not to be HAICG!Kirk about this or anything lol
David is mostly annoying because he’s so anti-Kirk lol. I found him least annoying when he came around to Kirk at the end. Another big strike against him: he wore his sweater tied over his shoulders in such a Preppy manner. I honestly don’t see what about him is supposed to be reminiscent of Kirk.
David/Saavik was definitely happening lol. I wish I could have heard that conversation. It sounds like she told him a lot!!! Not sure why she attached herself to this particular annoying human so fast but I guess she did.
....I think that might be all. The uniforms and general styling were much better than TMP (though less funny/entertaining), and it was certainly an enjoyable overall yarn. A lot to pick apart and critique but in a fun way. Will probably watch The Search for Spock soon.
4 notes
·
View notes
A scientist debunks pickup artists’ top dating theories and techniques
(Picture: Ella Byworth for Metro.co.uk)
Of all the manipulative ways to get someone into bed, pickup artistry has to be up at the top of the sleaziness scale.
The PUA community has boomed in recent years, with young incels (and the generally unlucky in love) retreating online to be given the ‘wisdom’ of those who claim to know how to meet women.
While many of us harbour a general distaste for this, the reason people still flock to read books like The Game is because they believe it works.
Professor Viren Swami from Anglia Ruskin University, a leading expert on the psychology of romantic attraction, knows better than the rest of us whether PUA theories are up to scratch. The short answer: They’re not.
He debunks their techniques for us.
NLP
Professor Swami takes exception to the idea that attraction can be boiled down to scientific theories.
In particular is the theory of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), which was popularised by ‘founding father’ of pickup artistry Ross Jeffries.
The general idea is that you’re supposed to anchor your actions to someone’s emotions. Then, when you do that action again, you can promote a response in the other person and they don’t even realise it.
Some people call it seduction hypnosis, as they believe you can tap into somebody’s subconscious and make them want to bang you. Gross.
Swami tells Metro.co.uk: Lots of men using these techniques believe they are exploiting a loophole in female psychology. With NLP, they believe they can “re-code” their romantic target to change her behaviour and trigger a woman’s “hard-wired attraction switches”.
‘But NLP has been debunked as a pseudo-science. At best it is false advertising and at worst the techniques can be harmful. Pickup artists are relying on bogus, armchair interpretations of psychology, biology and physiology.
‘NLP is not supported by the British Psychological Society and in 2012 clinical psychologist Stephen Briers concluded its “evidence base is virtually non-existent.”
‘Ultimately, you can’t fool someone into a relationship or a date – this is an unhealthy and bad mindset that can be damaging for both individuals. By miss-selling this idea, the PUA community is morally, ethically, and scientifically bankrupt.’
(Picture: Ella Byworth for Metro.co.uk)
Gender divisions
One of the main tenets of pickup artistry is that men and women approach romance differently. Professor Swami says that as part of the philosophy, ‘women are presented as a different species and are seen as objects to be conquered through a strategic game of deception.’
However, Swami believes that ‘men and women approach potential romantic situations in very similar ways. There are far fewer gender differences in attraction and relationship formation that we might like to believe.’
He believes that – although many of the men who follow PUA don’t realise it, ‘approaching the art of love as a war to be won means they are ultimately exerting a misogynistic desire to control women’s behaviour.’
Preach.
Routines and ready-made scripts
If you’ve ever watched a PUA online, you’ll notice their methods are anything but natural. Many use things like magic tricks or scripted ‘plays’ to get women to notice them.
Swami tells Metro.co.uk, ‘There’s a range of famous PUA set pieces, with dubious names ranging from Strawberry Fields to The Cube Routine, which the so-called experts claim are tried and tested to guarantee success.
‘They offer a game plan which, pickup artists claim, teaches men to quickly establish trust with a woman in order to get her into bed.
‘These scripts or pre-tested routines mean men are missing out on truly listening in for valuable social clues meaning they will fail to build a natural connection, or genuine attraction.
‘Deception and manipulation are the key threads that run through these routines – and they offer no foundation for a healthy, equal and trusting relationship.’
Strawberry Fields, for example, involves asking a woman questions about an imaginary field and seeing how many strawberries she’d pick. When she gives you a number, you’re supposed to tell her that actually it represents how much sex she wants to have. You make fun of her off the back of it and she’ll apparently want to have sex.
I know, a real love story to tell the grandkids.
(Picture: Ella Byworth for Metro.co.uk)
Cat theory
This theory was invented by Erik von Markovik, also known by his stage name Mystery.
Swami explains, ‘he stated women are like cats because they do not take orders, like shiny new things, can be tempted to chase you, and “rub against you and purr when they like you”.
‘These metaphors are common in the pickup artist world where men are urged to ‘train’ women by rewarding positive and punishing negative behaviour.’
Now, although cats are great, and get to chill out and sleep all day, it’s quite clear that women aren’t pets that can be trained.
Professor Swami continues, ‘this concept dehumanises women, presenting them as biological animals that are ruled by their genetic programming.
‘It assumes they lack any sort of personal agency and that all women will respond in the same way to seduction techniques when in reality, of course, sexual attraction is much more complex.’
Kino
A big part of the overriding PUA philosophy is ‘kinaesthetics’ – sometimes shortened to kino.
Kino escalation, for example, involves gradually increasing how much you’re touching a woman, pretending to know how to ‘palm read’ to touch her hand and going from there. One PUA site recommends escalating to ‘pull[ing] her close and say[ing] “I want to bite you”. Then giv[ing] her a little bite on the neck.’
According to Professor Swami, ‘they misuse scientific studies to make grand claims about human behaviour that are not backed up by evidence. Pickup artists say the actions are rooted in biological imperatives but show no awareness of the social and cultural constructs in which relationships are formed.
‘Worryingly, the routines often include an escalation of suggested kino or touching, which completely disregards consent. Men are encouraged to believe that ‘no’ is just ‘token’ resistance.’
Guys, please don’t touch people unless you have consent – and for goodness’ sake don’t randomly bite necks.
(Picture: Ella Byworth for Metro.co.uk)
Negging
Negging – one of the core principles of PUA – is a way of employing backhanded compliments to make a woman vulnerable. Once they’re feeling vulnerable, apparently they’ll be more inclined to have sex.
An example from Professor Swami is ‘you’re actually pretty with makeup on – it makes your nose look smaller’.
More: Entertainment
Celebrity Big Brother’s Kirstie Alley admits taking drugs while looking after baby niece and nephew: ‘You’ve lost your soul’
A scientist debunks pickup artists' top dating techniques
Alex Iwobi reveals big difference between Unai Emery & Arsene Wenger's training sessions
He says: ‘Negging directly contradicts the idea of reciprocity which is an important pillar of social psychology and a key component of attraction.
‘Put simply, reciprocity means responding to a positive action with another positive action. We like people who like us. Through reciprocity it’s possible to build exchanges and thereby relationships which are built on a more solid foundation.’
There’s no way to build a relationship when your whole premise is knocking someone’s confidence.
Essentially, these techniques are – at best – not made for creating any real connection and – realistically – likely to get you a punch in the mouth.
Professor Swami will be speaking at the upcoming British Science Festival in Hull on 11-14 September.
MORE: Woman says vaping CBD oil has cured her severe eczema
MORE: Expert in affairs says there are two types of cheating
0 notes