Brazil Star Trek Into Darkness Press Screening Reveals Big Spoilers + Peter Weller’s Character | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Brazil Star Trek Into Darkness Press Screening Reveals Big Spoilers + Peter Weller’s Character March 7, 2013

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Spoilers,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Another press screening (this time in Brazil) has revealed more secrets for Star Trek Into Darkness. This time there are many new spoiler details revealed including the identity of Peter Weller’s character and much more. You can read a summary of the report below but beware there are major spoilers.   

 

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS SPOILERS

Brazilian site Judao.com.br has a report from a press screening for Star Trek Into Darkness from Sau Paulo which was presented by producer Bryan Burk. 38 minutes of the movie was shown, mostly from the beginning of the film. TrekMovie has confirmed that the event did happen and that the report is accurate.

Below are some highlights from the report

From the extended beginning of the film…

Later scenes in the film….

You can visit  Judao.com.br to read the full report but it is written in Portuguese so you will have to translate it.


Motion Poster for Star Trek Into Darkness

Comments

1. Allenburch - March 7, 2013
2. augustus - March 7, 2013

Why did I read that.

3. The Great Bird Lives - March 7, 2013

Thats it?

4. Lords Of Kobol Book - March 7, 2013

I’m with you #2 …

But, I will say I think Kirk’s new position under Pike may help address the criticism that Kirk got command too quickly (especially if it’s mentioned in dialogue).

5. Andy Patterson - March 7, 2013

Those damn Brazilians. Spoiling the surprise. Just kidding. O que você está fazendo?

in beds with cat chicks. That sounds interesting.

6. CanOpener1256 - March 7, 2013

Well, there .. Some more info … And no really big spoilers. See JJ .. It can be done. I am now more excited instead of losing interest. Hey,when u get a chance go take a night class on marketing. It will do wonders for you. Fans shouldn’t have to resort to secret showings, in other languages, on a projector and white tarp between two trees deep in the Amazon.

He better not pull this secrecy crap with Star Wars .. Disney will kick his butt to a long tine ago in a galaxy far far away!

Anyway, sounds cool. Pike back in command! I am soooo there.

7. Matt - March 7, 2013

holy crap. holy crap. HOLY CRAP!!!!

8. John Tentuo - March 7, 2013

This is just my opinion, and I realize that fellow fans may disagree, rightly so. I am not pretending to speak for anyone except myself.

I am saddened to learn about Kirk and the felines (!) because for the first time in almost 50 years, James T. Kirk will disappoint me.

James Kirk does not disrespect women, alien or human. He is NOT a Lothario. That is a meme, but not true. There is no episode or film where Kirk ever disrespected a woman. He was always respectful and had emotional connections with the women he was with. The exception was if they were a “bad guy” and he needed to act to save his ship. It was never casual.

It appears from the report that Kirk casually engages in this behavior. I have never seen a film where a man slept with two women where that was not used to demonstrate that he was a villain. That is because historically and symbolically, such an action shows women to be objects in the world of cinema.

If the answer is that in this nu universe, Kirk is this way, then this is no Kirk to admire. For writers who knew the hearts of these characters excellently in 2009, this is surprising and a mistake. It makes a joke of Kirk and demeans him, as it does women.

This is something that I hope gets edited before the film’s release.

9. Matt - March 7, 2013

so Peter Weller is playing Carol Marcus’s Father? Holy BUCKETS!

10. NCC-73515 - March 7, 2013

If Weller is Marcus, who is April… XD

11. Smike - March 7, 2013

GOOD! Finally some spoilers… I really don’t share other people’s negativity about spoilers. I HATE watching films not knowing exactly how it’ll play out. I read the NEM script back in late 2001 when it hit the web, one year prior to the movie’s release and I didn’t regret it. I’ll see the movie several times anyway and yeah, I want to be spoiled before seeing it the first time. I know it’s “cheating” but it’s much better than being surprised within the film.

But then, I don’t expect anyone to share my take on spoilers. Those who like to avoid them should be left alone…

Admiral Marcus…Duh…So he’s Carol’s father…

I love the bit about the Prime Directive. It’s not just violated out of sheer ignorance (like that infamous buggy chase in NEM) but for the purpose… saving Spock’s life and establishing serious consequences…

12. Keachick - March 7, 2013

Oh wow. Kirk in bed with catwomen…I guess this is just another way of exploring the galaxy and those who dwell in it. Why not? Nothing beats QBE! So Pike wants to send Kirk back to the Academy. Perhaps it indeed was Kirk who got that lecture from Pike on humility. Pike is pissed! Also, it is clear that not only can Pike sees Kirk’s potential but others as well and were prepared to give him another chance as first officer…

Comprehensive story outline. Sounding very good so far.

I just hope that come 9 May (in NZ) that I can look forward to being a little bit surprised (pleasantly, I hope) by something in the film that I have not read about or seen already. I know – I do not have to come here etc, even leave the computer off, but this is like someone handing me a dozen bags of chocolate caramels and expecting me not to eat…sigh….

13. The Great Bird Lives - March 7, 2013

This link reveals the new 2-part Klingon helmet. There is apparently an oxygen mask below the outer helmet.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=399869443442507&set=a.393551177407667.85632.390290354400416&type=1&theater

14. JR - March 7, 2013

Can wait!

15. sisko - March 7, 2013

So far, no Khan. I’m happy.

16. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 7, 2013

“Pike wanted to send Kirk back to Academy but was convinced to make Kirk first officer of Enterprise by Admiral Marcus (played by Peter Weller)” – Hmmm, did Marcus ‘go easy’ on Kirk because of his own history with April? I can’t wait for this movie. Let me rephrase that: I don’t want to have to wait for this movie. May is too far away…

17. John Tenuto - March 7, 2013

#15:

Hi Sisko,

My translation of the original site, however, does state that John Harrison is not likely the character’s real name, it is an alias used in the film.

18. Mr Mike - March 7, 2013

So is Benedict Cumberbatch is de-aged or enhanced Robert April?

19. austrian - March 7, 2013

meh i’m so angry with myself right now for having read this
it tells you the entire movie already

20. Smike - March 7, 2013

#8: Maybe it’s a way to demonstrate s*xuality is dealt with far more liberal in the future, which I’m hoping for. Threesomes do NOT show any disrespect for WOMEN but certainly for outdated moral beliefs. It’s sad that even 45 years after the s*xual revolution, progress in that era is slowly eredicated by the return of ancient morality…

I hate it when people speak out against s*xual liberty in the name of feminism. Feminists claim stuff like p*rn reduces women to objects… Ridiculous. It reduces MEN to objects, for they are nothing but…you know what… S*xuality is power…and women own this power. Two women even more than one alone.

But those who are afraid of that power (as they used to be afraid of witchcraft) want to keep it under wrap: the churches, other religious fundamentalists…now abusing feminism to counteract liberties…Despicable!

21. WA - March 7, 2013

#8 – I agree with you. When I saw that in the description, my heart sank. It’s just going to make Kirk look like a jerk and a cretin. I know in the TV show, Kirk got around, but you make a good point. It was always respectful. You NEVER got the impression that he was out to use anyone. I feel like this is just an example of trying to appeal to the “Fast and Furious” crowd of immature 15 year old boys out there. It also shows that maybe, just maybe, J.J. Abrams really doesn’t “get it.”

22. Aurore - March 7, 2013

Thank you for the article, Anthony!

23. Ted - March 7, 2013

#8, Kirk had no emotional connection with the green girl in the 2009 film. He just wanted her to do something for him (rig the Kobyashi Maru test).

24. Nano - March 7, 2013

Whoa Bob! – Kirk into Alien Bestiality? You sick Mutha :) Hehehe

25. Paul - March 7, 2013

Glad they changed the IMAX opening it would not work for a mega budget highly anticipated summer movie like Star Trek ID you have to open big & throw your budget right up onto the screen not start with the personal family story. Only 2 months for me to wait now as I live in UK & they just pushed it up a week (a sure sign its going to be massive as it will be 1 week after Iron Man 3 so a lot of competition).

26. aligee - March 7, 2013

Same for me number #2 and #4 – rats i must stop using my eyes!
Gotta say it all sounds damn good!

27. Keachick - March 7, 2013

#8 – Interesting comment about Kirk’s apparently disrespectful behaviour.

I realize that this is your own opinion and I also realize that we are hearing about the scene out of context (until we see the complete movie, everything we read will be a little out of context)

What I would like to say is, even on this planet earth, monogamous intercourse and relationships have not always been the norm for many cultures and people. In fact, for many thousands of years polygamy/bigamy tended to be the norm for most societies, for better and worse. It does appear that monogamy has become the preferred way for a couple to relate and indeed bigamy and polygamy have now been outlawed in most countries, but not all. However, some bigamy still persists, even in affluent western countries, despite the penalties.

We have no idea what these alien catwomen are like, what their understanding and culture is. The first thing that occurred to me was that perhaps these females were a pair (quite normal for their species/race) and they engaged as such even when it came to having sexual relations with a male/s of their own kind or with an alien male like Kirk. Perhaps Kirk preferring one over the other could be seen as the ultimate insult to the female he chose not to be with. In other words, he got both or none. He chose both…

28. Phil - March 7, 2013

I am so biting my tongue about Kirk getting it on with….cats….

29. Josh C. - March 7, 2013

I was right! Weller plays daddy Marcus!

30. Nano - March 7, 2013

Pass the Katnip to heighten the experience!

31. David - March 7, 2013

Now that i’ve read that I can easily forget all about it by May 9th :)

32. David - March 7, 2013

Just glad that it’s FINALLY laid to rest that Weller is NOT playing Khan and neither is Cumberbatch.

Let it DIE.

33. Nano - March 7, 2013

Uh Alien Bestiality in 3D Imax…

34. Jefferies Tuber - March 7, 2013

It now seems like the crew could end up in April’s decommissioned Enterprise after Harrison’s siege on Earth, something more closely representing TOS Enterprise.

After the new Enterprise is wrecked and Pike is injured, Kirk would ask about the decommissioned Enterprise because of his encounter with April in the comic. Hell, it might even be on display in San Francisco. Scotty would love the solid old technology.

35. Josh C. - March 7, 2013

some star trek writer has been watching too much neko anime heh

36. NuFan - March 7, 2013

No matter what the news is, some idiot says it proves there’s no Khan.

37. Nony - March 7, 2013

So on the spoiler site it says Kirk lies in his mission report (pretty stupid move to begin with). And then, apparently, doesn’t even bother to check Spock’s to make sure they say the same thing? I thought he was supposed to be a genius.

And can we stop with the designating ‘Other’ women as sex objects? Matching sex objects, even – since I’m assuming the two cat-women are the twin actresses on the movie’s IMDb, apparently named “Sexy Girl 1″ and “Sexy Girl 2″. They don’t even get names. It was the same thing with Gaila – gaze upon the exotic green lingerie-clad body. Has nothing changed since the days of James Bond surrounded by a harem of ‘matching’ bikini-clad Asian women?

I’m hoping these scenes are less stupid and less offensive, respectively, than they sound.

38. Killamarshtrek - March 7, 2013

So Marcus sympathises with Kirk for saving a race by breaking the prime directive because he helped Robert April do the same 20 years earlier!

Maybe he’s still helping him………

39. Andrew - March 7, 2013

Anyone else here confused how you can be demoted back to being a cadet after you leapfrogged every other rank to be captain in the first place?

Real professional lol.

40. John Tenuto - March 7, 2013

#27

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your commentary and for not presuming my argument was moralistic or trying to change anyone else’s thoughts.

My thinking is based on several factors. First, cinema symbolism has always equated these kinds of sequences as villainous (I am not saying whether I think it is villainous or not, just that cinema has tended to use this as an archetype for villainy and not for heroes).

Kirk has never went to bed with a women unless (1) he had a relationship with her (Carol, Ruth, perhaps Edith, etc.) or (2) he had to rescue his ship and utilized his masculine charms as a ruse. It has never been casual. He is not James Bond and he is not a space age Lethario. Never has been in the Shatnerverse, anyway.

As a sociology professor, I am aware that many cultures have differing ideas, including a tribe in Siberia that marries rocks! Diversity is a wonderful aspect of Star Trek. If the intention of the act by Kirk is to have a message about diversity, I am not seeing it. This is a standard adolescent fantasy. Kirk is not with two men, it is not two men with a woman, it is not Kirk with another man, it is a male with two females, something we have seen in many films before. If there is a progressive message here, which I welcome, it may be lost on me. You are right though, this is not contextualized, we do not know the feelings of the felines (!), and I will wait to see the film before protesting too much.

#20

I was not implying any moralistic quality to Kirk’s action. I am not qualified to define morality for any other person. I was speaking to cinema’s symbolic use of this kind of scene as traditionally objectifying women. Mine was not a religious argument, it was a film argument.

Thank you for your thoughts and ideas. It is great to learn what fellow fans think.

41. Punkspocker - March 7, 2013

Sorry Benedict, I have opened the box of chocolates and I’ve begun to glut!

42. Ken - March 7, 2013

Well, I think they could have introduced Caitians (the felinoid species from ST, first seen in Star Trek IV) in the JJ Verse in a little more… tasteful manner.

I know for sure that the catgirl jokes will be flying left and right when the film comes out.

43. John Tenuto - March 7, 2013

#32

Hi David

There is nothing in the original article that says it is not Khan. In fact, the original article says that, if my translation of Portugese is good enough and I understand properly, that John Harrison is likely an alias the character uses. That acutely could help the Cumberbatch is Khan argument. We will know in a few weeks! Thanks!

44. Commodore Adams - March 7, 2013

Very cool stuff. I liked the preview with the movie opening with the alarm clock and the scene of England and going to the hospital THEN going to the volcano, I am not too keen about the switch up, but whatever.

I am also very interested to see these two cat ladies with Kirk, ME-OW!

45. Keachick - March 7, 2013

Where, in the outline given so far about this movie, does it have Kirk using anybody? Kirk is hardly a villain, if he goes back to save his first officer’s life, even if it may mean violating the Prime Directive. That is not villainy – anything but. Therefore, equating seeing someone who is clearly not an uncaring individual with two females sharing the same bed with him as being a stereotypical villain, is a bit sad.

I guess the other question must be – how much closer are these so-called feline women to being humanoid than to being something else? I assume they are more humanoid with features which appear cat like to us humans.

Gaila seemed to find Kirk just as *useful* as he did her. The scene where Gaila helped rig the KM test was a DELETED scene, so I do not consider inclusion of that scene to be at all relevant to this discussion. As far as I am concerned, DELETED scenes are NOT CANON.

46. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 7, 2013

… ‘cat women’ – does this mean we will get to see Caitians on the big screen, or will they turn out to be a different species? Apparently M’Ress had a brief drug-induced fling with Scotty in TAS…

47. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

Naturally people are finding a bunch of dumb crap to complain about. This sounds awesome.

First of all, to the people whining about Kirk being with two Caitians:

1. Kirk HAS been a Lothario ,whether you want to admit it or not, even in the prime timeline. Anyone remember the opening and closing of “The Immunity Syndrome”? You know, the one where the Enterprise crew was planning on taking shore leave, and Kirk makes a log entry about it while creepily eyeing some female yeoman on the bridge saying he’s looking forward to rest and relaxation? And then says the same thing at the end while creepily eyeing ANOTHER yeoman?

2. This is an alternate reality, ergo, not the Kirk we know and love. This Kirk had different experiences and did not have a father with which to model his relationships after. It’s been shown that children usually look towards their parental figures when learning how to build relationships with others. This Kirk didn’t have that, instead, he had a stepfather who threatened to “whip his ass”

#39

You don’t know the context with which he’s being demoted or even the dialogue in the scene, so sit down instead of judging it before you see it.

And as for the complaints about women being sex objects…again, you don’t know the context of the scene. AND we have Carol Marcus in this film, someone who theoretically is gonna be smart and maybe hip to Kirk’s attempts to get with her (and I’m assuming he’s gonna try). In any event, I very much doubt that she’s gonna be just a “sex object.” Uhura sure as hell isn’t either. So again, take a seat before you start whining and pre-judging.

This gives me renewed hope in J.J. & company. These next 2 months are gonna be insane.

48. Braziliantrekkiefan - March 7, 2013

In fact Pike persuaded Marcus:

“Again the film back to San Francisco. Jim is in a bar, getting drunk after being demoted. When he will exert all his glory as flirtatious Kirk, Pike appears. He has good news: he persuaded Marcus to put Jim, as his first officer on the Enterprise while Spock is transferred to another ship.”

49. Spuhura Addict - March 7, 2013

Ugh… I want more, more!!!!! Smh
Btw, welcome back Anthony.

50. Marja McCoy - March 7, 2013

Dude, spoiler alert, much?

51. John Tenuto - March 7, 2013

#47

You may disagree with me, which is great and deserved, but I don’t consider arguing that the characterization of Kirk is inconsistent with the growth of the character in the first film, and is inconsistent with the character we have known, is trivial. I have a hard time believe that so much is incredibly the same in this nu universe compared to the original, (including the fact that ALL of the major characters are in their same exact positions on the Enterprise) that the heart of the characters are fundamentally different.

James Bond beds women casually. There is no such instance in the history of Star Trek with James Kirk. He appreciates women, and he is interested in them. That does not make him a bed hopper. When he has had casual relationships, it is mostly a kiss and a romance, not sex, and many times not even implied sex. And most of those relationships or interactions that make people think of Kirk as a Lethario are actually acts by Kirk to save his ship. They are not casual acts. He does not go to bars and pick up women that I have seen on Star Trek. He did not sleep around. The Lothario idea is a meme, not rooted in fact.

Thanks for the thoughts, though. I appreciate learning what fellow fans think and helps me appreciate Star Trek more.

John

52. Jefferies Tuber - March 7, 2013

This news also establishes the emotional connection between Kirk and April. April bailed on Starfleet to play Lawrence of Arabia on Phaedus IV, but Nolan North seems to be April in STID, so the natural question is, did April influence Kirk to violate the PD on Nibiru, and why would he be in this movie unless Kirk needs to turn to his ‘bad dad’ after his good dad is injured/killed/turned into a robot in Harrison’s attack?

53. Nano - March 7, 2013

A little off topic, but since were discussing movie footage, I would like to say the Volcano scenes with Kirk & Bones fleeing was a bit disappointing. Having lived through Mt St. Helen’s it would have been more intense with ash covering the landscape and filling the air. The Move Dante Peak had decent Volcano scenes.

54. Nony - March 7, 2013

@47 mhansen0207

Re: your comments on the women – I *hope* the scene plays better in context than it sounds on paper (metaphorically speaking). But, seeing as this is a Hollywood production, I have little faith.

And not objectifying some women doesn’t mean you can store up some kind of non-sexist credit that you can spend on objectifying other women and it all evens out in the end. “Hey, Carol Marcus is a scientist and helps the plot! And Uhura is the communications officer and has character growth! That means I can have hot twin alien cat babes in another scene who are just there to titillate teenage boys and prove what a stud Kirk is, and nobody can call me sexist!!!” Nope. The portrayal of women shouldn’t be a zero-sum game. I wish a lot of people in the entertainment industry would realize this.

55. Aix - March 7, 2013

Wow. Too much information. Haha…haha! Are there no embargos or something?

56. Marja - March 7, 2013

Why is Spock transferred to another ship!? NOOOOOooooooooooooooo …

On the other hand it’ll be great to see Pike in action again.

PLEASE don’t kill Pike please please please no.

57. Ctrl-Opt-Del - March 7, 2013

“The “father” character uses his Starfleet ring as a bomb (dropping it into water for a reaction) and destroys a facility (in London)”

Totally called that! :-D

58. porthoses bitch - March 7, 2013

If one of the cat women is M’hress…..wow I honestly don’t know what my reaction might be……..

I’m guessing a may release date ( if it’s a hit) would give us a black friday video release …perhaps Halloween if Man of Steel takes the black friday date.

59. Steve Urkel - March 7, 2013

All three of the latest news stories were already mentioned in the comments while you let your site sit for two weeks. Way to go Anthony, late and lame as usual.

I hate you. GFY!!!

-troll from last year

60. JeffreyNdallas - March 7, 2013

Even if John Harrison is a cover, it just does not make sense to me that he is Kahn. Even in this time line, Kahn should be of mid-east decent. How in the heck could he turn in to a “white” guy? Also, until we see the movie, I think saying it objectifies women because Kirk is seen in bed with two cat women is reading too much into it..IMHO.

61. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#54

Explain to me how it is sexist if the two cat women wanted to sleep with Kirk?

It is not sexist if a movie portrays a woman who chooses to engage in sexual activity, at least to me. Just as long as it’s portrayed as their choice.

You’re making a mountain out of a molehill here for a scene that probably won’t last that long, and using absolutes to justify your reasoning. Why does a portrayal of women have to be a zero-sum game? Is there not variety in the world? Are there not many different types of women with many different types of personalities? Why do they all have to be the same? Some personalities you may not like or be attracted to, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist and cannot be portrayed on screen.

I was NOT implying that Carol Marcus and Uhura’s portrayals are token females and that their presence gives the writers carte blanche to do whatever they want with women. What I am saying is that their presence allows for the portrayal of different women with different facets. I like seeing variety on screen.

62. AJ - March 7, 2013

I can see the authors using the cat-ladies as a way to express Kirk’s immaturity vs Carol representing his newly minted sense of commitment and responsibility. The next struggle for Kirk is the famous one of ‘Enterprise’ vs. that ‘beach to walk on.’

63. JeffreyNdallas - March 7, 2013

Oops…Khan…not Kahn…work with a guy with that last name…my apologies..

64. NuFan - March 7, 2013

Everyone knows that catwomen love to double up.

65. EM - March 7, 2013

More than I needed to know. Wish I had some self control and could avoid these annoying spoilers!

66. crazydaystrom - March 7, 2013

Kirk in bed with TWO cat women! Seems crass and distasteful. But I’m going to keep my extreme indignation in check until I’ve seen the film…four or five times.

And refrain from the all too obvious jokes this scene will inspire. For now.
;-)

67. Jack - March 7, 2013

In movies, threesomes are almost always a sign of losing one’s moral compass / being self destructive. As are one-night-stands.

68. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#51

You say you have a hard time believing why things in this alternate reality are so similar to the prime universe while the characters may be different for whatever reason. There’s a real world explanation and a Star Trek explanation that you’re not considering.

First, the real world:

It is exactly as I said before. People are shaped not only by their genetics but also by their experiences. This Enterprise crew did not have the experiences that the prime crew had. They haven’t grown in the same manner that the prime crew have. Keep in mind, Into Darkness is taking place six months after 2009, and in the year 2259. If we were to look at the original timeline, James Kirk did not take command of the Enterprise until 2265, almost a full 7 years after when the 2009 film takes place. That right there represents a fundamental shift in experiences.

If we look at the characters of Kirk and Spock in particular, they have now undergone fundamentally different experiences that would lead them to manifest some of their character traits in different ways. Kirk did not have a father figure to guide him while growing up. Spock has now lost both his planet and his mother, someone who he was very close to. Changes like this are gonna have lasting effects on the characters. The essence of who they are remains. Kirk is still headstrong, confident, and passionate; however, because of his experiences, he is manifesting those traits in different ways. Spock is still intelligent, logical, and efficient; but now he is going to have a harder time keeping a cap on those emotions the way prime Spock did because prime Spock had advantages that this Spock didn’t have.

Why did these characters all end up in the same positions? I don’t know. But this is not a plot hole that you can claim only happens in this alternate universe. In the 500,000+ alternate realities we see in the episode “Paralells,” why is the crew (for the most part) pretty much made up of the same group of characters on every Enterprise-D? Why does the Enterprise-D (again, for the most part) look practically similar to the other Enterprise-Ds?

Why did the mirror versions of the crew members end up meeting each other in the mirror universe? Surely that would be unlikely, but it still happened. My guess is that there is some force in these universes that still push for circumstances to unfold in a particular way. For example, in this alternate reality, a LOT of changes have occurred. My theory is that the space-time continuum tries to correct this dissonance by pushing for things to happen, such as the crew still getting together.

69. Beamer - March 7, 2013

@8 Well said, He may be a different Kirk, but he’s still Kirk and he would never act that way. If that scene is kept in the film I may not be going to the theater on release day.

70. Jack - March 7, 2013

66. Like everybody on set didn’t make that joke 600 times. I picture Orci and Kutzman high-fiving each other during writing.

McCoy: “Damn it Jim, when I told you to go out and get plenty of… “

71. Crone - March 7, 2013

I don’t know about that. I can easily imagine a younger and less mature Version of ” our” Kirk doing something like that.

72. Jack - March 7, 2013

Hi Crone. A very belated thanks for some nice things you said to me on an older post.

73. Kirk Nelson - March 7, 2013

Agreed, the scene with Kirk and the “cat women” is disheartening and inappropriate.

74. John Tenuto - March 7, 2013

#62:

That is an interesting intrepretation worth considering. Thank you. I guess my problem would be that if this is immature Kirk, it is retreading the same ideas as the first film. We got immature Kirk. With only 3 or 4 of these films, likely, it seems a shame to have Kirk go through the same immaturity theme. I’d rather he learn something else, like the value of family or when it is acceptable to break rules. The prequel comics are so focused on the prime directive and we know from the 9 minutes before the Hobbit that the prime directive is a theme of STID. Hopefully that is what Kirk learns about, something interesting like that. I hope it isn’t the immaturity thing again. Reminds me of “Wayne’s World” and “Wayne’s World 2″ where Wayne has to woo the same woman again in the second film.

Thanks for the interesting thoughts!

75. crazydaystrom - March 7, 2013

70. Jack-

Like I said “All too obvious”.

58. porthoses bitch-

Yeah I at least want to HEAR the name M’ress!

76. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 7, 2013

@74. John Tenuto
…of course, it’s also possible that this scene is to remind us that Kirk IS still immature at the commencement of STID. As I understand it STID is taking place only 6 months after Star Trek. It seems to me that it is likely that STID is the movie in which he has to grow up, and in doing so, become more like the Captain Kirk from TOS.

77. opcode - March 7, 2013

“Pike wanted to send Kirk back to Academy but was convinced (possibly ordered?) to make Kirk first officer of Enterprise by Admiral Marcus (played by Peter Weller)”

According to the Portuguese text it is the apposite, Admiral Marcus send Kirk to academy, while Pike convince him to transfer Kirk back to the Enterprise as 1st officer.

78. Nony - March 7, 2013

@61 mhansen0207

Obviously the cat women would have *wanted* to sleep with Kirk, otherwise it would be rape, which it won’t be, because…good guy main character. It’s just that this is a representation problem that keeps coming up over and over in popular media. It’s wonderful if women want to have sex and if it’s shown on screen, because female sexuality should be a positive and empowering thing. But the problem comes when that is *all* that female characters are used for, what point of view a scene like this is coming from, and if and how female sexuality is used strategically to attract a certain target audience. Consider (and obviously this is all hypothetical based on a garbled sentence of hearsay, but I’m not even necessarily just talking about this scene or this movie or Star Trek at all at this point): do we know these women’s names? Do we know their jobs? Do we know anything else about them, how they met Kirk, where they were before they ended up in this sexual scenario and where they’ll go after? How does our male protagonist, the one whose perspective we follow and with whom we are meant to identify, look at and treat them? How does the camera look at and treat them? How does the film’s marketing and paratextual material look at and treat them?

That’s not even getting into the issue of the Other woman. The fact that they are cat women (Caitians, maybe?) might not seem that important, apart from the fact that it demonstrates the diversity of Star Trek’s future society. Kirk sleeps with aliens. He doesn’t discriminate. Cool, more fun for everybody. But this is also a very specific decision the filmmakers have made. Kirk is a white male sleeping with women coded as *exotic*, and that has been a very loaded issue for a long time, because it hearkens back to things like colonialism and Orientalism, echoes of which are still prominent in Western culture today. The Other (non-white) woman is often disproportionately sexualized and objectified. In Trek, the Other category expands to include alien women, because our main characters are mostly male, mostly white, mostly human. Other women have been described in animal-like terms, as less than civilized, implying they may even be less than human – think of the Asian ‘dragon lady’ stereotype. Here, we, and Kirk, are given literally animalistic Other women whose primary purpose appears to be sexual. All the cliches. Maybe it’s not so cliched in the movie – maybe the cat women will get up, put on their Starfleet uniforms and go back to work, and be seen later, doing something else – or maybe it is. We’ll see.

Anyway, there *are* many different women with many different personalities in the world, but I don’t feel like “we see her naked” equals a terribly rounded personality or developed character in the movies. Sexual female characters are often made that way to serve the male gaze of the audience (in film theory, the gaze is generally referred to as male, because it is historically from the perspective of a heterosexual man; the camera penetrates and the gazer is dominant in the unequal power relationship between looker and looked-at, which puts female characters at a disadvantage to begin with) as well as the actual straight males the scenes are meant for. You talk about wanting to see different facets. I want to see all those different facets, but not in a fragmented way, with this woman being only sex and that woman being only science, because that isn’t good enough. I want to see all the different facets in *individuals*.

And jeez, I didn’t mean for this to get so long and probably incoherent. I apologize. But I am a young woman who would probably be considered Other by the Western media, and I’m doing work in feminist film criticism right now, so.

79. Nony - March 7, 2013

(“whose primary purpose *in the film narrative* appears to be sexual.” Not primary purpose in life. I hope.)

80. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - March 7, 2013

#21 – “Maybe, just maybe, J.J. doesn’t get it.”

…It’s taken you THIS LONG to figure that out?!?! I think that was pretty clear back in ’08…

81. Phil - March 7, 2013

Kirk breaks the PD by surfacing to transport in Spock, revealing Enterprise to the cavemen? Just how the hell did Enterprise get there to begin with without revealing it to anyone? A starship, over 2000 feet long is going to glow red hot in the night sky, and flying in a Mach 30 is going to make a ton of noise…..

82. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#78

Feminist film criticism. That is an interesting lens to look at this scene through. Certainly helps me appreciate more where you’re coming from. Take my viewpoints for what they’re worth. I’m a man…albeit a homosexual man who REALLY loves strong female protagonists on TV and movies (people like Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley, and Laura Roslin I consider my heroes).

In the end, perhaps this is an argument for why Star Trek works better as a television medium rather than in the movies. Don’t get me wrong, I love the films, and I love J.J.’s contributions, but perhaps what you seek is better expressed on a medium where we can take weeks and episodes to learn about side characters and give them some attention. The kind of things you’re seeking unfortunately would not fit as well into a movie. I think it would be unfair to say it’s because the Hollywood film system would not allow it (that may be part of it). Rather, I think it’s because of the rationale of moviegoers. I even have to count myself among those people. I’m a Trek fan, I want to see the Enterprise crew. I don’t need a scene of Kirk meeting these women in a bar personally. It’s really hard to get a lot of stuff into a film when you have a 2 hour time limit. I think a lot of people’s issues come from the fact that all trek movies before this, both TOS and TNG, starred crews who we got to spend an extended amount of time with on screen before they went to the movies. This is the first time in Star Trek history where a crew (even if they are the TOS crew, they’re still new) START at the movies. As such, we get development for 2 hours every few years rather than for one hour every week.

To me, Kirk is engaging in what a lot of young men (including myself) have done when they’re in their early to mid 20s and have raging hormones: hooking up. People can see it as distasteful, I get it. But that doesn’t mean it would be out of character or out of the ordinary. Now, through a feminist lens, I could see why you may have some objections to that.

But it doesn’t sound like this is an incredibly long drawn-out scene. It will probably at the most, a minute or so. I don’t think it’s a scene that’s worth writing off an entire film the way I see some people (not you) planning to do on this board.

83. ralph pinheiro - March 7, 2013

post 77. opcode

It is correct.

84. NeoFromTheMatrix - March 7, 2013

Does anyone else think this is just another exercise in how far from Star Trek we can be taken???

85. chrisfawkes.com - March 7, 2013

Clearly Peter Weller is playing Khan then.

86. chrisfawkes.com - March 7, 2013

Something will happen where Pike realises that Kirk and Spock on their own are not a fraction of Kirk and Spock together.

He will witness what the two of them can do as a team.

87. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#84

No I don’t. I think this is an exercise in how we can evolve an almost 50 year old franchise to adapt to the 21st century.

Star Trek cannot survive without change, as evidenced by the 18 year run where it for the most part did not change.

88. chrisfawkes.com - March 7, 2013

Kirk gets plenty of pussy then.

89. Thorny - March 7, 2013

81… Not necessarily. The Enterprise was not glowing red-hot when seen in Earth’s atmosphere in “Tomorrow is Yesterday”. If the ship can take off from its assembly point in Iowa, it should be able to slow down at the same rate and make a controlled descent to the surface. At night, it could escape undetected.

90. TigerClaw - March 7, 2013

The two Catwomen that Kirk is in bed with, is probably the alternate universe’s version of the Caitians.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Caitian

91. NeoFromTheMatrix - March 7, 2013

Sorry, but what I see is a lot of shiny objects and flashing lights for the ADD generation…

92. chrisfawkes.com - March 7, 2013

@84 Nope.

93. Nony - March 7, 2013

@82 mhansen0207

Thanks for understanding! I agree, Trek works a lot better (most things work a lot better, really) in a format where all the characters can be properly developed over weeks and years, versus something two hours long that has millions of dollars riding on it and is therefore naturally going to be conservative in outlook. Hollywood goes with what’s historically made them money in the sci-fi genre – tailoring their subject matter to the young male audience. I wish they’d realize that’s outdated at this point. But we’re never going to get, say, Uhura (if it was in character for Uhura) in bed with two hot anonymous cat guys – and that just proves how sexist the industry is.

I don’t even have a problem with Kirk hooking up! Kirk’s gonna Kirk, after all. My problem is the whole male gaze thing.

94. Gary S - March 7, 2013

Wonder which ship Spock is assigned to and how does he end up on The Enterprise later?

95. Disinvited - March 7, 2013

Well, I suppose it only stands to reason that if DARK KNIGHT had one Catwoman then Abrams’s DK is going to have two.

96. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - March 7, 2013

Kirk and the Catwoman. I thought she was with The Dark Knight. Lol.

97. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#91

What I see in you is someone who rejects any change.

As a member of the so called ADD generation, I call BS on you classifying and writing off anything that we like as something that captures our short attention spans. I could easily write you off as part of a generation that is obsolete and stubborn in their old-fashioned ways.

I’m 24 years old and have every single Star Trek season and movie on Blu-Ray and DVD. Unlike you, I can appreciate where Trek has been AND where it is going.

98. Bob Tompkins - March 7, 2013

Kirk in bed with two cat women. I am not expecting much from the movie now; they are making it to appeal to the libidos of teenage boys.
I hope Paramount finds the courage to axe Abrams and his crew and give the franchise to someone who cares about Star Trek and the characters who populate that universe.

99. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#92,

Ah, and on that note you and I finally agree. I would love to see a strong female heroin be sexually assertive…maybe even aggressive more in mainstream Hollywood films. I’ve never supported that particular double-standard.

100. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#98

Nice to know you know exactly how the movie is gonna be before you’ve even seen it based on a single description of a single scene.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

101. NeoFromTheMatrix - March 7, 2013

@98 – I couldn’t agree more. It’s not just that one thing though. Even in the first movie…explosions…boobs…explosions…a villain with the personality and maturity of a 5 year old. Oh and lets take a cadet that we were thinking about kicking out and make him a captain a couple of days later. Greeeeeeeeat story…

102. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#78 Nony:

I just want to say, this post was incredible! You took the words right out of my mouth. Watching a female protagonist feel comfortable in her sexuality is one thing, but when the female(s) is/are put on the screen for the sheer purpose of indicating that Kirk has an active libido, well there is a term for it, its called objectification.

Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one’s sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification. Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person’s personality or sentience.

Unfortunately objectification is all too commonly used in Hollywood. If the spoilers are true, I’m exceedingly disappointed in the writers and the producers.

103. Anthony Thompson - March 7, 2013

KHANNNNN!!!!

104. Theatre Historian_Levi - March 7, 2013

I have to say I like what I have read about these sequences.
however, If the 5 year mission hasn’t even begun yet, why didnt the comics focus more on original stories rather than alternate universe retellings of Prime trek adventures.

I am just glad that this should once and for all put the Khan possibilties to bed. Think its pretty positive now Khan plays no role in this story.

105. The Observer - March 7, 2013

Can’t imagine why anyone would think John Harrison is an alias.

106. BatlethInTheGroin - March 7, 2013

#8: That is COMPLETELY untrue. There have been MANY women with whom Kirk has had dalliances.

107. crazydaystrom - March 7, 2013

Once again a few minutes of footage and a few words of description and near madness ensues. Ha! And you call ME crazy!

No wait. I call me crazy. What evs.

108. BatlethInTheGroin - March 7, 2013

Why do people on this and other sites make SUCH a big deal about canon vs. non-canon? For crying out loud, folks–you all prove why others see us as nerds when you talk like that. Canon doesn’t matter.

109. Sunfell - March 7, 2013

This sounds like the movie I want to see, with the story I want to be told. They couldn’t title it “Star Trek: Kirk Screws Up”, but that is what looks like will happen. And that is what was needed.

May 19 can’t come fast enough. And of course, a new wait will begin for the third movie- how will Kirk redeem himself? Who gets to pay for a wrecked starship? And will Porthos make an appearance?

110. Elias Javalis - March 7, 2013

Ha! Caught me of guard there! Peter Weller role sounds intriguing!!

111. Corvette King - March 7, 2013

So Peter Weller is Carol Marcus’s Father. He must hate Kirk

112. Obsidian - March 7, 2013

109 – Sunfell, they saved 15 minutes off the film getting the Enterprise insured through Geico.

Damage will be repaired at major repair centers with original parts.

Kirk’s rates are going up though.

113. Jonboc - March 7, 2013

It’s amazing so many fans here are apparently unaware of the Caitians. Kirk has just been busted and his command stripped, it may just be one of those kind of nights. Regardless, the new spoilers sound great, and as indifferent as I am concerning this Kirk-Caitians threesome, I personally hope we see M’ress . Would love to see Mr. Arex as well. But, please, not in bed with Kirk! lol

114. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#47 mhansen0207:

First of all, to the people whining about Kirk being with two Caitians:

1. Kirk HAS been a Lothario

Not really, no. Kirk the lothario is a concept that fandom sort of took and ran away with it. In fact, most of the ‘romantic’ scenes involving Kirk and a woman were Kirk trying to get himself or his crew out of a bit of a scrape. Let’s look at canon, shall we?

Lenore Karidian “The Conscience of the King” a complete sociopath and serial killer, Sylvia from “Catspaw” had Kirk, Spock and McCoy hostage and threatened the ship. Helen Noel from “Dagger of the Mind” whom Kirk said ‘no’ to, and who later tried to implant a suggestion that Kirk wanted her via the Tantalus machine. Shahna from “The Gamesters of Triskelion” who has Kirk and members of his crew collard with a device that gives them immense pain if they try to escape. In “A Private Little War” there is Nona, who has him drugged. Then there’s Kalinda from “By Any Other Name” who has him captive. And lets not forget Deela, from “Wink of an Eye” whom, pardon the expression, thought the crew of the Enterprise would all make great sperm doners. Then there’s Elaan, from “Elaan Of Troyius” who drugs Kirk via tears. And I can go on and on but this paragraph is getting far too long as it is.

Now let’s look at the women Kirk did have an actual, genuine interest in: Edith Keeler “City on the Edge of Forever”, a lady, a humanitarian and a strong-willed woman whom Kirk told Spock he loved, Ruth “Shore Leave”, whom Kirk mentions he was engaged to at one point, Rayna “Requiem for Methuselah”, whom he dances with and plays billiards, and is genuinely distraught to find out that she was really an android, in fact so distraught that Spock feels he has to remove Kirk’s memories to spare Kirk the pain of the whole ordeal. Janice Lester “Turnabout Intruder”, also a strong-willed woman, and ambitious to the point where she’s few tacos short of a combination platter, however Kirk did mention that they dated for a year before her crazy got in the way. Areel Shaw “Court Martial” whom he parted with on amicable terms because they both wanted to place their careers first. Miramanee “The Paradise Syndrome” whom he thought he was married to while suffering from amnesia. And lastly Carol Marcus, a brilliant scientist and strong-willed woman, who gave every indication in “The Wrath of Khan” that it was her idea, not Kirk’s, that he stay away from her and David.

Doesn’t exactly point to a character who goes around trying to put notches in his bedpost now does it? If anything, based on his track record with the type of women he showed genuine interest in, he picked the smart, professional, and independent type.

115. Curious Cadet - March 7, 2013

@74. John Tenuto,
“I guess my problem would be that if this is immature Kirk, it is retreading the same ideas as the first film. We got immature Kirk…. I hope it isn’t the immaturity thing again.”

John, you have an interesting singularly focused way of looking at things.

Kirk was promoted to captain before he even graduated from the academy. He was immature, brash, undisciplined and should have in no way been given the captains chair. This movie clearly addresses that head on. There is no other way to revisit it than to explore Kirk’s immaturity along with all the other shortcomings. This Kirk is cocksure, arrogant, and as dressed down by Pike, is going to get somebody killed someday. Only when his whole world come crashing down does he realize how immature he has been, and perhaps question for the first time whether he should have been promoted to captain of the Enterprise.

The fans have been complaining about this for 5 years. There is no other way to address it without calling into question everything we thought Kirk had overcome in the last movie. And what’s wrong with that? As I considered the negative implications of Kirk hooking up with two cat women, I thought of Denzel Washinton’s flight and saw Kirk as a similar character, lying to himself about who he was and what he achieved. Assuming the scene with two women is what you think it is, how would this be any different than a scene where a powerful man hires prostitues, or hooks up with groupies after a rock concert? The women in this case aren’t important, and their appearance is all about the exploitation of them by the main character. The world is full of this kind of thing and as long as there’s a point to it, then it is justified.

Now, it’s just as likely that everyone in this scene is there because they want to be. However, considering it is modern day Hollywood, my guess is they are used to convey a point about how out of touch Kirk is. I seriously doubt we even learn their names.

But this is NOT the Prime universe Kirk, so I don’t understand why you keep comparing the two. You either accept this new Kirk who has to grow up in a completely different manner than Prime Kirk, and deal with his immaturity, knowing full well that it is this readily identifiable trait that is saving Trek at the box office, or you get off the ride now. I don’t know how often you deal with teenagers, but they usually need several repetitions of valuable life lessons to overcome a negative behavior. And that’s what this movie seems to be doing, showing us again why Kirk still has a lot of growing up to do. There are consequences to rising through the ranks too fast, and with any luck, the demographic that is saving the franchise will walk away clearly understanding this message. Because this series of films aren’t for you, you aren’t saving Trek, and neither are the fans who let Enterprise die on the vine. It’s for the adolescent kids who keep the box-office alive. And it is for them the message is being tailored.

116. Jim Nightshade - March 7, 2013

why does it put to bed its not khan…they reported harrison is an alias probably…..
i understand the concern over 2 catwomen for kirk….is it eattha kitt n lee meriweather i wonder..miss kitka……but remember shore leave mccoy came out from underground with two bunny type dancers one on each arm….spockat one pt called mccoy a sensualist and he said somethin like damned right i am….gene r always said he would never stop using women as sex objects,,,or men…..

on tonites cbs infotainment shows not one new word on into darkness but everyone is xcited that carrie fishers princess leia will be in the star wars sequel….thanks a lot jj for being yer own worst publicity enemy..sigh

117. Kev-1 - March 7, 2013

This movie sounds like a “Space Seed”/ Wrath of Khan” remix. It’s been done in a film. I don’t like what they’ve done with Kirk, but this isn’t the same guy, or same Starfleet. I don’t see this universe even having five year missions, despite what they did in the comic. This earth has too many internal problems. They’re just deconstructing the whole Star Trek concept. Is Kirk going to do something brave at the end to get reinstated?

118. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#115 Curious Cadet

The world is full of this kind of thing and as long as there’s a point to it, then it is justified.

Not really. No. It’s never justified. And the fact that it happens so many times in film that its actually become cliche is a problem. A big one. One that needs to be addressed.

Kirk lying on an official report is enough of a reason to demote him, and enough to indicate he has a little yet to learn. The bed scene is overkill, and feeds into a stereotype of women as objects.

119. sean - March 7, 2013

Lots of young people have casual encounters. That’s common to both women and men. Heck, lots of not-so-young people have casual encounters. In that sense, I have no problem with Kirk ‘hooking up’ with two ladies. And if they are Caitian, that would simply indicate to me that in the 23rd Century interspecies relationships just aren’t an issue. It certainly doesn’t sound as ridiculous as the scene with the three-breasted cat dancer from Star Trek V, which was obviously there for no reason other than titillation.

I remember Jadzia Dax being a thoroughly sexually liberated character. She often had one-night stands (prior to her relationship with Worf) with both men and women. Sometimes with more than one partner. So I don’t think this would be a first for the Star Trek universe.

That being said, I am sensitive to objectification and would hope that this movie isn’t one-sided in its representation of sexually liberated characters.

120. Al Levi - March 7, 2013

I refer everyone to “Wink of an Eye”, don’t have the time stamp, where Kirk is shown putting his boots on while sitting on the bed as Deela combs her hair, then walks over, plays with her hair, spins her around and passionately kisses her.

1960s for sex.

It is quite clear Kirk had sex with Deela, for the safety of the Enterprise.

121. Curious Cadet - March 7, 2013

@118 trekkiegal63,
“It’s never justified.”

What isn’t? Treating women like objects, or depicting them like objects in films?

How would you produce a film about the life of a street prostitute without showing women as objects?

Let’s say a character has a problem using and abusing women. And the point of the film is to show the character learning that such behavior is wrong. How would you do it?

My point is, not that I approve of the scene, but rather having a reason for such a scene is far better than doing it to be gratuitous, which is by far the main reason such scenes are included in films. So I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt it here, not having seen it.

This film series already has an appalling track record casting minorities and women in general, so perhaps I am giving Abrams too much credit. While I don’t disagree with you, and scenes of this nature appear far too frequently in modern film and television, everything is justified if a character learns something from it. Not likely the case here. But it demonstrates a pattern of behavior. Like binge drinking, or habitual drug use. How else do you depict it without showing it?

122. Al Levi - March 7, 2013

#114 ;)

123. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 7, 2013

@114. Trekkiegal63

You believe that the Kirk as Lothario is a (undeserved) concept that fandom took and ran away with. Perhaps that is so, but my personal perception is somewhat different.

I can only speak for myself and my impressions at the time on this matter: I was 12 when I first saw Star Trek in 1966 and was immediately emamoured of the show. However, my 12 year old female brain interpreted Kirk as a total sleeze as he seemed to be coming on to some female in every episode. It was only later with the movies that my reaction to him mellowed. Even to this day, my sons enjoy pointing out to me that I still cringe when a Kirk ‘romantic’ scene comes up in a TOS episode I happen to be re-watching.

Yes, there were women he really cared about. For the rest – I’m not convinced that Kirk regularly ‘using his charms’ to get himself or his crew out of a scrape makes him a better person than Kirk just being a Lothario. That means these females were just a means to an end. Now, if he’d shown at any time that he didn’t like himself for what he felt he had to do, or that it at least bothered him a bit, maybe I’d have thought better of him. Also, not all of the women fell into one of the two categories you have described. For example: Dr Miranda Jones, Dr Helen Noel or Lt. Moreau (the prime universe one, not the mirror universe one).

I am aware that Kirk was portrayed as he was because he was the hero and the hero got the girl(s) back in those days. I had similar issues with Napoleon Solo from The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and (surprise, surprise) the James Bond movies…

124. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#121. Curious Cadet:

Like binge drinking, or habitual drug use. How else do you depict it without showing it?

Yet this isn’t a movie about prostitutes or drug addicts. It’s Star Trek. Spoilers indicate that Kirk lied on an official report. Which is just as bad as lying under oath. That is enough of a reason to demote him and highlight his immaturity. In real life there was talk of impeachment for Clinton for lying under oath.

Thus the bed scene, if true, is gratuitous.

125. James - March 7, 2013

So of course the same day that Huge amounts trek coverage and spoilers emerge.
Lucas in an interview lets it slip that Harrison, Carrie, and Mark were allready signed, then corrects himself

“We had already signed Mark and Carrie and Harrison — or we were pretty much in final stages of negotiation.” He quickly realized his misstep: “Maybe I’m not supposed to say that. I think they want to announce that with some big whoop-de-do, but we were negotiating with them.” Then, trying to cover up: “I won’t say whether the negotiations were successful or not.” Nice try, George.
here is the link.

http://www.vulture.com/2013/03/lucas-says-fisher-hamill-ford-are-signed-on.html?mid=imdb

126. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#123 ObsessiveStarTrekFan:

I wouldn’t say ‘using them’ per se, as with the examples I used, most of them had him captive or came onto him first. In fact, the use of drugging him or trying to alter his mind (since you also brought up Helen Noel) was often used.

Let’s take Noel, for example. In the episode “Dagger of the Mind” they indicated that Kirk had, at one point, clearly told her no. That they had once talked of romance but Kirk, as was his normal stance, put his career first. It was Noel, once Kirk was hooked up to the Tantalus machine, who tried to implant the idea in Kirk’s mind that he loved her.

From the “Dagger of the Mind” transcript:

KIRK: In here, I presume, Doctor.
NOEL: Perhaps it would be simpler if you called me Helen, Captain, since
KIRK: This is another time, another place, and another situation.
NOEL: Of course, Captain

Then, on Tantalus:

NOEL: (light turns) At the Christmas party, we met, we danced, you talked about the stars. I suggest now that it happened in a different way. You swept me off my feet and carried me to your cabin..

How on earth would anyone get Lothario out of that?

127. WTH? - March 7, 2013

re: menage a trois (implied) with Kirk and the cat-women. Did bestiality go mainstream all of a sudden?! What’s with some of you?

128. 750 Mang - March 7, 2013

So waited the first movie to see Kirk in the big chair and now we will have him out of it for the second. Of course he will get his command back at the end. Lame. So Lame.

129. Curious Cadet - March 7, 2013

@124. Trekkiegal63,
“That is enough of a reason to demote him and highlight his immaturity. In real life there was talk of impeachment for Clinton for lying under oath. Thus the bed scene, if true, is gratuitous.”

Well that is your opinion. I don’t know that. Lying under oath, or on a report is something totally different from immaturity. Treating women like objects is a different problem from lying.

And bringing Clinton into this … How appropriate. Was lying under oath really what upset everybody? No it was his childish behavior with Monica Lewinski in the Oval Office. Lying about it is how they were able to punish him. But you illustrate my point clearly … Clinton had a problem with women. Could you do a movie about Clinton and gloss over the reason Cinton was impeached, and just call it a day and say his lying was enough, we don’t need to show his poor judgement in creating the situation he had to lie about in the first place because depicting it would be gratuitous?

This Kirk has a problem with women. Perhaps Prime Kirk didn’t, but this one does. So do they show it? Or do they skip over it and let the one problem be enough to convey everything the producers want to show about the character? What if showing Kirk treating women like objects is used to then contrast Kirk’s later behavior toward Carol Marcus as he learns there’s more to life than he’s been living? This Kirk may well be a lothario, who needs to learn the errors of his ways. So, just don’t depict it because it might offend somebody, because this doesn’t happen in the real world?

I have a suggestion for both of us. Let’s see the movie first before we argue the merits of something we know nothing about.

130. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#123 ObsessiveStarTrekFan:

I just reread my last post and realize I came off a little harsher than I intended. I’m not trying to dictate your impressions from TOS. I realize that people take different things from the show, a show I’m fully aware we both love to a ridiculous degree and have in common with each other. And people taking different things is true of all art, really.

But I do feel, from *my* impressions of Kirk through the years, and my own knowledge of canon, that the Lothario thing was exaggerated a bit – that the legend became bigger than the truth.

131. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#129. Curious Cadet:

This Kirk has a problem with women.

Which is precisely the point of the matter. Why is it necessary to show that this Kirk has a problem with women? Of all the issues they could give him to highlight the fact that he grew up without a father figure, why use women? They could show him having a problem with authority (lying under oath), they could show him taking the ‘I don’t believe in no-win scenarios’ belief system to the point where he believes himself invincible and nearly gets himself and his crew killed because of it, we’ll call it the Q complex. There are a million different ways this could be done without exploiting or objectifying women.

I have a suggestion for both of us. Let’s see the movie first before we argue the merits of something we know nothing about.

In this I can agree with you entirely. I’ll save my true indignation for if and/or when this little tidbit actually makes it to the big screen.

132. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 7, 2013

@130. Trekkiegal63

That’s OK. As you say, people taking different things is true of all art. At any rate, you are correct to feel I got a bit carried away by including Dr Noel as an example. In Dagger of the Mind it was Dr Noel trying to implant a false memory into Kirk down on Tantalus – not the most professional or ethical thing she ever did… From memory, the implication from the transporter pad scene is that ‘something’ happened at the Christmas party, involving Noel, that Kirk found embarassing. From the perspective of a 12 year old mind, remember, this was probably Kirk snogging Noel without a real romantic attachment to her- a concept that was just ‘yuk’, and enough to put the incident on my list.

You are also correct about Kirk’s reputation taking on a life of its own. My sons introduced me to Futurama some years ago – I swear I never set out to watch it, but I’m sometimes on the lounge when one of then puts it on… There is a character called Zapp Brannigan, who even I can recognise is a parody of Kirk.

133. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#131

Why is it necessary?

Because it’s not the PRIME Kirk. This is what people don’t seem to understand. This Kirk is NOT the Shatner Kirk. He is the essence of the Shatner Kirk but having undergone very different experiences, ergo, he’s NOT GOING TO BE LIKE THE PRIME KIRK.

And why do it with women?

Whether or not you believe that prime Kirk was a Lothario (IMO he totally was, could name plenty of examples), his interactions with women were a MAJOR part of that character. It would be absolutely ridiculous to not explore that facet of his character in this new universe with these new circumstances. We’re exploring every other facet while we’re at it (Kirk’s leadership skills, his stubbornness, etc.)

It just seems extremely short-sighted to keep comparing the way prime Kirk acted to the way the new Kirk acts and expect a 100% match. You may not like the way this new Kirk is portrayed or whatever, but that’s your opinion, not the fault of the writers, they’re staying within the boundaries of the character that they created.

134. RetroWarbird - March 7, 2013

The spoilers seem pretty minimal.

But I do hope the cat women are Caitians. My favorite hands-down background element of the TOS films was that there were a bunch of Caitian admirals. How cool was the lion guy? Or the black panther guy?

135. Johnny - March 7, 2013

Come on, Trekmovie.

What is the purpose of posting spoilers like this? Why is it necessary? To increase page views, sure, but at the cost of spoiling the film for scores of viewers.

Does anyone actually want to hear this? It’s clear that Abrams wants the film to remain as mysterious as possible — how about we respect that and just wait for the film to open.

I feel like the minute the film screens in it’s entirety, and it’s potentially revealed that John Harrison is Khan, Gary Mitchell, or someone else — you’re going to plaster that info all over this site. Or even if you do an article saying “Don’t Read This Unless You Want to Be Spoiled” — WHY WHY WHY is that necessary?

I strongly urge you guys to refrain from posting any details of the plot until after the film opens. There is nothing more fun than to watch a movie in the theater for the first time without knowing anything that is going to happen. Let everyone enjoy that experience. Spoiling even seemingly minor details about the film ruins the magic that J.J. is clearly trying to create. Don’t undermine him. Please.

136. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

120. Al Levi:

“Wink of an Eye” is also not a good example to use if you’re trying to make the case of Kirk as a Lothario. Deela’s threat to him was quite clear, i.e. put out or die.

“Wink of an Eye” transcript:

KIRK: Why are you doing this?
DEELA: Do you really want to know? In a little while it won’t matter to you at all. You’ll be quite happy about it, Just as Compton was.
KIRK: I really want to know.
DEELA: Oh, dear. You are so stubborn. It should be obvious to you that we’re doing it because we have to. A long time ago, it is in our history, we used to be like you. Then our country was almost destroyed by volcanic eruptions. The water was polluted. Radiation was released. That changed us. It accelerated us. The children died. Most of the women found they could not have more. All of our men had become sterile. So we had to mate outside our own people. Whenever a spaceship came by, we’d send our calls for help. But accelerating them to our level burned them out. Don’t you see, Captain? Do I have to go into every detail? We are going to take you down with us. Perhaps one or two others of your crew. We have to. We’ll be kind to you. I wouldn’t hurt you, certainly. I do like you.
KIRK: What about the rest of my crew?
DEELA: They’ll remain here in suspended animation. It will do them no harm. We are saving them for when we need them in the future. You will not last forever. You know that, Captain. Captain, we have the right to survive.
KIRK: Not by killing others.

… Said it once, I’ll say it again. Kirk’s reputation is wildly exaggerated.

137. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#133. mhansen0207:

It just seems extremely short-sighted to keep comparing the way prime Kirk acted to the way the new Kirk acts and expect a 100% match.

Um, you were the one who brought up Prime Kirk. My post using canon evidence to support the fact that Kirk wasn’t as much of a lothario as some fans are convinced he is was in a direct response to your post.

You said, and I quote:

47. mhansen0207 – March 7, 2013

… Kirk HAS been a Lothario ,whether you want to admit it or not, even in the prime timeline.

And the problem, btw, is that Hollywood objectifying women is common-place and a huge issue. There are plenty of other ways to indicate Kirk having issues without bring a scene like that into it.

I will direct you to this site here: http://www.seejane.org/research/

Kindly read the statistics collected by this non-profit organization on women being objectified in media, then get back to me on whether you think a scene with Kirk in bed with two females is appropriate.

138. fwise3 - March 7, 2013

Definitely starting to believe that Cumberbatch is Robert April.

139. Sebi - March 7, 2013

Please keep in mind that Kirk is not the Kirk we used to know, at least not yet. He’s “not done yet”.

Although I for myself don’t really like the countdown into darkness comics, it is shown that Kirk is emotionally vulnerable and will rather talk to the computer then somebody else.

My guess is, that the threesome with the cats in the beginning of the movie will show this immature, maybe even disrespectful side of Kirk, and at the end, he will have matured, more like the Kirk we know from the prime universe with the help of Carol Marcus.

140. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#132. ObsessiveStarTrekFan:

From the perspective of a 12 year old mind, remember, this was probably Kirk snogging Noel without a real romantic attachment to her- a concept that was just ‘yuk’, and enough to put the incident on my list.

LOL! Fair enough. I remember scrunching my nose and proclaiming ‘ewwwww’ a few times during TOS myself. ;)

My sons introduced me to Futurama some years ago – I swear I never set out to watch it, but I’m sometimes on the lounge when one of then puts it on… There is a character called Zapp Brannigan, who even I can recognise is a parody of Kirk.

Oh my, I’m thinking I might need to check out Futurama on netflix, if its available *grabs remote*.

141. Luke Montgomery - March 7, 2013

People who think sex is bad are annoying and outdated beyond words. Your invisible man in the sky “morality” is as fake a your talking snake.

I can’t wait to see Kirk with two cat women, but not because of the catwomen, but because of the fact that I’m a gay dude and Chris Pine is killer hot. I also agree that it sets up a growth arc for him to “mature” and move toward Carole Marcus. Also, for you people whining about Kirk and sex… did you ever even watch the original series? Hot alien chicks is what Kirk is about after saving the day and the Enterprise.

Super excited about this film. May fly from Mexico to UK to see it a week early.

142. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#137

I don’t need to read the statistics that that site relied on. That site may have used questionable measuring methods to get their results and taking them absolutely on face value would be a mistake. I’m not gonna debate that women are objectified in media because I agree with that point. I think people like you are making too much out of this one scene though. Women have been objectified in Star Trek in the past, usually without purpose…another cat lady comes to mind in Star Trek V.

If it bothers you that much, you don’t have to see the film, but maybe your overreaction will be for nothing. I mean, could the scene not serve the useful purpose that #139 is suggesting. After all, if the scene serves a purpose, it’s all the better for it. If not….well….just avert your gaze and attention for the one minute scene and forget about it. Not that big a deal.

143. An American Pastor - March 7, 2013

I’m a christian that loves ST, hope the two women scene I can cut out before my children see this film or I’ explain to them that the makers of this film are not believers and thus they can enjoy the film, knowing that in this satanic culture that we live in films do have real life “sin” and we must pray for them…sex is good, not listening to God is bad.

I know what many here will say but ask me if i care. we pastor must say the truth regardless what other think of us.
I’ will see the movie and pay to do so, i won;t close my eyes when the scene comes on, i know that kirk kisses a lot of women in all my favorite episodes but in bed is another thing all together: here is the problem Christians say nothing and soon two men in bed in St or Sw, it’s a shame, hopefully a least one of you will understand.

For those that say Salomon had 900 women, salomon was also an idolator, but God does forgive when ask in the name of Jesus, now all non believers can send me wherever you want, it does not bother me, i ‘know where I’m going, i’ have not judge JJ or anybody I’m not the judge I’m only a rep.

144. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#142 mhansen0207:

Women have been objectified in Star Trek in the past, usually without purpose…another cat lady comes to mind in Star Trek V.

AND

If not….well….just avert your gaze and attention for the one minute scene and forget about it. Not that big a deal.

… Except that it is a big deal because its common place in film and should NOT be.

Furthermore the underlying theme of Star Trek is progression. Tolerance. Boldly going forward, not back.

psst: Star Trek: the Final Frontier was released in 1989, nearly 24 years ago.

I’m not gonna debate that women are objectified in media because I agree with that point.

So you agree that its a problem except if Abrams does it, it’s not big deal? Oy.

145. Red Dead Ryan - March 7, 2013

#143.

Keep your prejudiced religious fundamentalist views in church, pal. There’s no place for it here.

146. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#144

Then don’t go see the film. It’s very simple.

147. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#144

And furthermore…

…psst, yes, I can do addition and subtraction! Neat, huh?

Yes it’s a problem, but I’m not gonna go waving the red flag for a two minute (and most likely insignificant) scene. Either you live with it or just don’t go see the film if it bothers you and others that much. If the WHOLE FILM were to portray women like that, then I’d have a problem. But until that happens, I’m not gonna make a mountain out of a molehill.

#143

You do realize that part of the reason Roddenberry created Star Trek was to make stories against close-minded religious fundamentalists like you, right?

148. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

146. mhansen0207:

Already bought my tickets and did so, unfortunately, before these spoilers came out, otherwise I would have adopted a ‘wait and see if this is true’ philosophy prior to purchasing. But *if* that scene is included and depending on context, it could dictate whether I return to see it again.

I’ve seen most of the Trek films multiple times while they were in the theater, starting with ST:TMP in 1979, and right on down the line. With the exception, of course, of those very few I didn’t care for.

It remains to be seen where this one will fall in that line-up.

149. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#148

Well, honestly, if that one scene ruins the whole film for you, then I truly feel bad for you.

150. James - March 7, 2013

Ummm ok well tp change course from un needed religous talk, in other news the Los Angeles Natural History Museum commercial is voiced by Leonard Nimoy.

151. James - March 7, 2013

that should say the Los Angeles Natural History musuem’s NEW commercial is voiced by Leonard Nimoy
sorry bout that above

152. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#147. mhansen0207 – March 7, 2013

…psst, yes, I can do addition and subtraction! Neat, huh?

Goading a bit, are we? My, my your feathers appear to be a bit ruffled. As a woman myself, and the mother of a teenage daughter, I have reason to be a bit passionate about the portrayal of women in the media.

Tell me, what’s your excuse for getting so hot under the collar? ;)

153. MJ - March 7, 2013

@8 “I am saddened to learn about Kirk and the felines (!) because for the first time in almost 50 years, James T. Kirk will disappoint me.”

Yea, I don’t want to see this shit in a Star Trek movie.

154. MJ - March 7, 2013

@141 “People who think sex is bad are annoying and outdated beyond words. Your invisible man in the sky “morality” is as fake a your talking snake.”

Not offended by it at all. Just don’t want to see Kirk in a threesome in my Star Trek. That does not belong in a Start Trek movie.

Similarly, I don’t need my pourn to have scifi elements.

The two don’t mix.

155. mhansen0207 - March 7, 2013

#152

I enjoy matching your snark and self-righteous attitude. It’s not everyday a grown woman seems to enjoy debating and coming down to the level of a 24 year old. ;)

I’m not the only one whose feathers seem to be ruffled. But for maturity’s sake, let’s just end this now.

156. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#155. mhansen0207:

Ah, well, you see debates are actually quite common among adults. And *very* common on this site. The difference between me and you? The use of the ad hominem fallacy of logic.

What you just did here? That’s not debating. That’s attacking a person, not a theory. Discussing the movie, or the issues of female objectification, all fair game. Attacking me because I disagree with you? Less so.

157. Red Dead Ryan - March 7, 2013

Two things concern me about the sequel:

1. The idea of cat-women. Last time we had that, it was in “The Final Frontier” during one of the most laughable (for all the wrong reasons) scenes in all of Trek. That was pathetic, with the three-breasts and all. That came just before the Uhura fern-dance. UGH!

2. If Benedict Cumberbatch is playing Sybok, that’s going to temper my excitement a bit. Especially if this Sybok is trying to get revenge against Spock for not being able to save his homeworld and resorts to targeting Earth in retaliation. That seems to be what the source article hints at. I didn’t expect STID to recycle the plot theme from the first movie where Nero blamed Spock for allowing the destruction of Romulus and then went to destroy Vulcan and attempt to do the same with Earth.

Overall, these are a couple of concerns of mine. The writers borrowing not only from their own previous installment, but from TFF as well.

158. Trekkiegal63 - March 7, 2013

#154 MJ:

Not offended by it at all. Just don’t want to see Kirk in a threesome in my Star Trek. That does not belong in a Start Trek movie.

Couldn’t agree with you more.

159. mhansen0207 - March 8, 2013

#156

I’d brush up on my logical fallacies….the difference between me and you? I don’t use hasty generalizations.

#157

I doubt very much that they’re gonna be taking that much from Star Trek V. I think the fact that it’s cat people is just mere coincidence.

160. MJ - March 8, 2013

@157 Well said, RDR. It had better not be Sybok, and the two catgirls in bed is just dumb and doesn’t fit.

@158. Good to be in agreement for a change with your Trekkiegal. And I’d like to see this matt hanson guy try his lame condescending schitck on me — sorry you are not getting any reason or thoughtfulness from him in your ongoing discussion here.

161. Dave H - March 8, 2013

James T. Kirk is not 007.

A menage a troi with cat grils?

To Bob Orci: What the “F”, dude? Were you tripping acid when you wrote that scene?

162. rogerachong - March 8, 2013

The catwoman thing most likely will only be part of a scene. Any takers, I bet less than 15 seconds screen time. The film is PG13 and they will probably do a “Tony Stark” a lot implied but nothing much seen.

(You knew it was coming!) Just like this joke, “A starfleet captain and two ladies walk into a bar. So the bartender sais, “What’ will it be.” The captain replies, “Two glasses of milk and a Caithan Sunrise.” To which the bartender responds, ” Sorry buddy we are all out of milk but this here flea collar is on the house.”

It amazes that with all the spoilers listed, this little moot point will predictably get the biggest reaction from the posters on this site.`Get a life much and LLAP.

163. mhansen0207 - March 8, 2013

#162

“It amazes that with all the spoilers listed, this little moot point will predictably get the biggest reaction from the posters on this site.`Get a life much and LLAP.”

My thoughts exactly.

164. Riker's Beard - March 8, 2013

Not reading. Bring on the 9th of May!

165. MJ - March 8, 2013

@162 Well it got you excited enough about it to take the time late night here to write a three paragraph response telling us why is “wasn’t important” ;-)

You are obviously another card carrying member of the Get a Life club. Please remember to sign out when you leave the club premises. LOL

166. Trekkiegal63 - March 8, 2013

#159 mhansen0207:

What have I generalized? In each of my posts I did say “if” the scene was included, which alludes to the possibility that it might not be.

For example:

#148: …But *if* that scene is included and depending on context, it could dictate whether I return to see it again…

And

#131: I’ll save my true indignation for if and/or when this little tidbit actually makes it to the big screen.

And, I might point out, that you were actually the first to generalize when you indicated in your initial post that Prime Kirk was a lothario, which I have supplied canon evidence to support that this stigma is actually widely exaggerated.

Here’s the thing, I get that you liked ST2009, so did I for that matter, for all that I’m a TOS girl at heart, but your attacking me because I take issues with a scene mentioned in spoilers that would, if it does take place, involve objectifying women, is taking that love too far. You can love something without attacking others who voice concerns or call you out when you make a generalization regarding Prime Kirk by using canon evidence, not ab hominem abuse. You’re going to find that there are those out there who are far more critical of Abram’s version of Trek than I am.

167. MJ - March 8, 2013

@163. Your thoughts exactly? Hmn? But its important enough to you that you have posted nine fracking times about it, dude. Heck, you’ve practically written a term paper on it so far here. You could punch a time card at this point given the amount of time you have spend on this discussion on something you don’t think is important at all.

You think it is very important, obviously.

Come on, admit it, you really want to see this scene badly.

168. Trekkiegal63 - March 8, 2013

#160 MJ:

It is nice to be in agreement!

And yeah, no worries. Though I must admit I’m actually missing our Shatner/Oscar discussion in comparison to what I’ve been dealing with tonight! ;)

169. mhansen0207 - March 8, 2013

#166

*Sigh*

Perhaps I have gone too far. I freely admit sometimes I get very passionate about the things I like, to the point where I go on a rampage to the detriment of the image I portray. I do apologize.

I disagree about Kirk not being a Lothario (I do have examples, but it’s almost 2 am here and I am tired), I don’t have the problem with the scene objectifying women as I believe the scene will be minor and insignificant. I don’t understand or support your reasoning behind these arguments, but that’s okay. On these points, let’s just simply agree to disagree and call a truce. I’ve taken this way too far out of hand already.

170. Trekkiegal63 - March 8, 2013

#161 Dave H:

Well said my good, sir!

#167 MJ:

You just made my entire night with that!

171. mhansen0207 - March 8, 2013

#167

Normally I’d respond more combatively, but I’m trying to put this to rest for the evening. Suffice it to say I really don’t care all that much about the scene…it does nothing for me since I’m not into cat women….or women for that matter.

172. Dave H - March 8, 2013

mhanson207 appears to be some internet wannabe who labels himself as some kind of podcast star. He has twitter account where like the same 15 people tweet each other over and over.

173. Trekkiegal63 - March 8, 2013

#169 mhansen0207:

On these points, let’s just simply agree to disagree and call a truce.

Agreed, and thank you. I appreciate it.

As for being passionate about Trek, no worries. Understand entirely. Bit passionate myself. ;)

174. rogerachong - March 8, 2013

@MJ I don’t sleep very well, have a problem these days. I woke way too early and now I have to stay awake in order to do some business in the daylight. Yes it does suck. Anyways I still have you folks to help me pass the time before I have to get a move-on.

175. MJ - March 8, 2013

@174. Sorry to hear that dude. Hope you feel better soon.

176. mhansen0207 - March 8, 2013

#173

I guess one positive display can come of all this: we Trek fans haven’t lost the passion four years after the first film.

#172

Can we please leave my personal life and everything out of this? I acknowledged my unkind behavior and apologized. I’d just assume move on.

177. mhansen0207 - March 8, 2013

#173

I’ve also been thinking, maybe I’m a bit more easy with taking a more liberal interpretation of some of the things from TOS (i.e. whether or not Kirk is a lothario, etc.) because I’m not quite as passionate about TOS. I like it, but I was always more of a 24th century era Trek fan.

Maybe I’ll have greater pause if they ever reboot The Next Generation…..which I have a feeling may happen, gulp.

178. K-7 - March 8, 2013

“Maybe I’ll have greater pause if they ever reboot The Next Generation”

Oh God, not a rebooted bald loud short guy, a ships therapist who had command bridge duty, and a bridge that looks like a bad interior decorator exhibit — please, NOOOOOO!

179. Baby - March 8, 2013

Four things I have to say,

1. trekmovie needs a real discussion board on this site…

2. Reading the spoilers, it is quite obvious that the writers of this film took into account the huge uproar from many Trek fans when Kirk got promoted to captain so easily in the first film. it makes sense that the writers of the film will look of a way to demote him.

3. It seems is like there is too much stuff going on and I hear the film is just 2 hours. that is kind of short of me, I would have preferred it if it was 2 hours 45 minutes.

4. I am beginning to worry about the critical reception of this film. I just hope =film critics will love it like the first one. Face it guys for this film to be successful it will have to have a strong word of mouth.

.

180. McCoy's#1fan - March 8, 2013

well, we always new the T in James T. Kirk really stood for
Tomcat

181. McCoy's#1fan - March 8, 2013

sorry “knew”

182. K-7 - March 8, 2013

If the scene with the two pussycats with Kirk really makes it to the final cut, then I think there will be actually three pussys involved with that scene:

Roberto Orci, Damon Lindelof and Alex Kurtzman.

183. Jemini - March 8, 2013

so are these spoilers real? IDK but some of them seem fake to me or maybe it’s the out of context and lack of details that gives me this impression
where it says that Spock is transfered to another ship.. whut? If Kirk is the one that violated the rules while Spock said the truth (and actually wanted to sacrifice himself so that said rule wouldn’t be broken ) why on earth Kirk should become the second officer in his place while Spock is transfered? it makes no sense to me.

184. bardicjim - March 8, 2013

I think Benedict is Mudd, however Mudd is a shapeshifter.

185. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 8, 2013

I don’t have any real problem with the logic of Spock being transferred, under the circumstances. Assuming what we glean from these spoilers is correct, then it is likely Kirk has been put under Pike so he can learn from him and Pike can mentor Kirk. Spock would be assigned, presumably, to a comparable position on another starship. Spock would go where he was ordered to go and would not (allow himself to) have any feelings one way or the other about it.

Whether or not Kirk should have been punished more harshly than being busted to XO is another issue, and I’m sure one addressed in the move.

186. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 8, 2013

… that last word should have been movie…

187. Killamarshtrek - March 8, 2013

@185

I’m willing to bet Admiral Marcus lets Kirk off lightly because he himself helped Robert April do exactly the same thing 20 years ago.

188. The same pastor again - March 8, 2013

I’ am instructed by the invisible man in the sky to tell his other children, my brothers and my sisters, things 3 times, after that they can go to perdition.

Roddenbery did not create ST to promote sex, he created ST to promote peace and that is I want between the invisible man in the sky and my brothers and sisters that practice what no other animal practices , have yet to a male lion F another male lion, the instructions are that they must sacrifice there body’s, yes very difficult, it’s easy to say, not so easy to do, yet it must be done.

On another note read Eze.1 and also chapter 10 of the book of the letter the invisible man in the sky sent you and draw what you read, the horses of the Bible are not what you think, they are metal and round, the glory be all to GOD for allowing me to see, in all honesty I’ feel like a Jedi and must endure as one, after this bit of truth regarding metal round things and fantasy regarding jedi’s, as I said before sin in movies in not new and only a christian knows about other planets an so called aliens, the letter from Father talks about dinosaurs, talks about the pyramids and the paranormal, but you believe in Him or He won’t let you see.
This movie will be a good one and the seen in question will be fast and stupid…

189. me - March 8, 2013

scene

190. Aix - March 8, 2013

I think the dilemma the Prime Directive brings to the table is great. It touches morality with the good/ right debate and it has undeniable parallels in our world (intererence of the UN/ the mingling of America with everything) may it be good or bad. If the movie revolves around it and if JJ makes it compelling enough, we’re in for a treat.

191. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 8, 2013

@187. Killamarshtrek

I originally thought so too, and said as much in post #16. However, there seems to be some contention regarding the translation of the Brazilian story – did Marcus get Pike to go easy on Kirk (as it states on this site); or did Pike get Marcus to go easy on Kirk (which is what you get if you use Bing to translate the original Brazilian page, and which others have stated on this forum).

…and I think there’s also the issue of whether he was really punished for violating the Prime Directive, or for doing it AND for being stupid enough to be caught lying about it – again this bit is from the Bing translation of the Brazilian page, which states Kirk lied in his report; Spock of course, did not.

192. BatlethInTheGroin - March 8, 2013

#42: The Caitans were not first seen in Star Trek IV. They were introduced in the animated series.

193. BatlethInTheGroin - March 8, 2013

Kirk has ALWAYS been a Lothario, and those saying otherwise are imprinting their own values on the show instead of adhering to what actually happened. Plus, bedding two women is not disrespectful or sexist in the slightest. He’s not raping them–it’s consensual. They’re getting as much out of it as he is. Some of you people are downright Puritan, and could use a good threesome yourselves.

194. Tomar Re - March 8, 2013

#179 Agree: this site needs a discussion board…

195. the pastor - March 8, 2013

forgot to mention that only Christians will travel the stars in real life after this one and only if you qualify to pilot, captain or be necesary aboard in one God’s horses, He has a lot of chariots to the stars.
I’m going to love this movie, I,will edit it if necessary before adding it to my collection, again only if necessary….

196. Bob Mack - March 8, 2013

#143, #147

What’s up with the intolerance? Roddenberry might have disagreed with some “fundamentalist” dogma but never, to my knowledge, would he have advocated that fundamentalists have any less rights than you do to your opinions.

Star Trek was NOT about a future where fundamentalism was stamped out and repressed – it was about a future where people came to accept that diversity (which includes fundamentalism) was embraced and appreciated.

I might not share the pastor’s opinions on the matter, but I respect his/her right to have them and frankly, they are directly related to the topic of morality being bandied about here.

197. John Tenuto - March 8, 2013

#193

It could be argued that those who think Kirk IS a Lethario are also imprinting their values on the character.

I sincerely ask any fellow fan to educate me as to which original episode or film James Kirk from the Shatnerverse casually had intercourse with a woman without it being for the purpose of saving his ship. One episode or film, please. Just one, and I will rethink my argument. I am not speaking of him admiring women or showing interest. I am speaking to what a Lethario actually is: please show me one woman that James Kirk slept with casually without the purpose being saving his ship during a crisis.

In fact, quite the opposite is true. James Kirk had feelings for the women in his life: Ruth, Edith, Carol. Any casual interactions were because he needed to save his ship. Being romantic is not being a Lethario. James Bond is a Lethario. James Kirk never was. I do not subscribe to the group think that Kirk is a Lethario because there is no evidence to support that when watching the episodes or films in my experience.

If someone else has better evidence, I am open to rethinking my position.

And the claim the cat sequence is not disrespectful or sexist “in the slightest” is dubious at best. There is a legitimate objection to the cat sequence if its sole purpose is sexual interest from the audience. That has nothing to do with Puritanical values. Do the cat women play an important role in the film? Does Kirk learn something from this encounter? If so, then it may be showing that Kirk has lost his moral compass or is perhaps arrogant. Then, the sequence, like the one with the Orion woman from the first film, may have a purpose to the narrative.

Or, are the women there as objects solely for the audience to have a sexual reaction. Is it a sequence with no repurcussions for Kirk? If so, then it is yet another example of Hollywood using women as a sex objects for the audience.

Certainly one could discuss those concerns, especially in a Star Trek film, without being Puritanical.

I don’t think it is radical to argue that Kirk has always been a serial monogomist and so has nearly every hero in literature and film. If the scene is there to show Kirk is a “real man,” then I prefer Ricardo Montalban’s definition of real men as those who love only one other for decades. As Montalban writes in his biography, anyone can have many conquests or encounters. It takes a real lover to be with one person for decades and decades. Kirk may not have that kind of commitment to another person, but I think is okay for fellow fans to object to his inclusion in a scene whose sole purpose is sexualizing women, presuming that this is the purpose of course.

Frankly, I find it amusing that the argument against threesomes is being labeled as radical.

I’d prefer not to label these debates, and respect each other without demeaning the other’s values. Or, did I miss something in Star Trek’s lessons about tolerance?

198. Bob Mack - March 8, 2013

I don’t know if it matters that Kirk is a “lothario” or not, but I think it’s not at all central to the theme of Star Trek and I’m a little tired of Kirk being the immature one these days. I’m not going to form any solid judgements based on reports of a movie I haven’t seen yet, but I hope the writers have done better than just play that same card with Kirk over again. It’ could be a very tired theme that reminds me more of Twilight than Trek.

199. the pastor - March 8, 2013

For those that say we Christians are full of fantasy, we are told that always by many friends and even family, yet we believe what’s in that old book that cannot be destroyed no matter how many times they try. You all as well as I’ were traveling the stars before we came here as flesh, one day we will return there in our new celestial body’s, can’t wait, but must endure and wait, can’t go by me making it so. ST was the first opportunity to feel that again, those of us who love traditional no money making ST or at least not enough money making ST want to feel the adventure again, not just the danger. You guys and girls who love the adventure are only remembering how it was before you were born in the flesh. Thank you big brother and savior Jesus, your blood for your little brothers and sisters is the price that had to be paid to that other brother that hated us for no reason, Thank you again.

Please JJ and company to not mix religion the true or the false one with any movie or show never again ST V , if biblical movies are made then just stay true to the Bible but best if those that want it, just read it. In terms of ST or SW only Jedi stuff and only a little, k,k.

200. BatlethInTheGroin - March 8, 2013

#199: It is very difficult to understand your writing. It’s like reading a bunch of disconnected words.

201. Elias Javalis - March 8, 2013

138@

Yeah i follow you. A Robert April Who managed To reverse aging via genetic engineering.

202. Moputo Jones - March 8, 2013

So in the JJVerse someone can potentially be sent back and forth between the Academy and the rank of Captain (one step below Rear Admiral!) just like that in the space of 4 months? Really?

On another note, I am happy to see Caitians again? But plese, don’t let one of the Caitian women be M’Ress.

203. moi - March 8, 2013

#200
lol, it OK I’m spent, too bad. I’ wrote a beautiful and long sequal. to my previous post, but the gods of this world did not let it be, I’ think…

204. Classy M - March 8, 2013

#199 – Weren’t you in Jonestown?

205. The Last Vulcan - March 8, 2013

201. Elias Javalis – Please note for the sake of patting myself on the back that if you go through my posts of the past couple of months, I’ve had this plot 90% nailed. Kindly show your appreciation by sending large bars of gold pressed latinum to my forwarding address (now that boborci has blown up my home planet)…

My money is that the catchicks are not Caitian but their relatives: the Kzinti. If so Jimmy Diggs has just soiled his pants. Lions Of The Night LIVE! :)

206. Mad Mann - March 8, 2013

I’m glad that the writers are making note of Kirk’s rapid ascent in rank to Captain in the first movie. It was ridiculous and the focus of many fan’s critiques, including mine. That bothered me more than the science faux pas of the movie, which were many and beyond silly.

I hope that Kirk really does earn his captain rank this time: through years of experience!

Anyway, at least they make note of it.

And to Mr. Tentuo: How do you know that the Shatner-Kirk never “slept around” in his younger days? By the time we meet him in the midst of the 5-year-mission, we see the seasoned man that has grown to respect women beyond their sexuality. It is quite possible that he and maybe Gary Mitchell and other Academy-pals were hooking up left and right with girls.

207. rogerachong - March 8, 2013

I read the report from the Brazillian site. Trekcollective has a great link. Google transalate did the rest. I was right. the report sais Kirk awakes in his apartment in San Fransisco with the two catwomen in bed. He quickly gets a call from Pike to attend a meeting with Spock where he receives a dressing down as he and Spock have conflicting accounts of events on Nibiru.

The Caitians have no names (most likely the twins only referenced as Sexy Girl 1 & 2 in the cast page) and are only seen for less than 10 seconds with only an implied coupling.

So there is probably a little objectifying and the catwomen are not beasts as some posters imply, rather they are intellegent highly evolved females.. They are just seen in bed with him withwhat appears as no context as to how they got there in the first place..Kirk appears with them before he is reprimanded, so it seems this could be a perk of his ever growing popularity in starfleet. Call me Maybe?

Have to say it, I’m starting to dig “The Pastor” like the original “Mongo”. Peace and Love.

208. Sebastian S. - March 8, 2013

I’m officially stoked. ;-)

And so much for Peter Weller playing a “CEO”; he’s admiral Marcus (presumably Carol’s dad; and it would explain her attraction to Kirk. She has a daddy fixation). ;-)

At any rate, it sounds good. The reedit on the opener sounds smart too; I thought that hospital opener was a bit ‘soft.’ Although the segue into the alarm clock was clever… hope they keep that after the title shots.

209. Janice - March 8, 2013

I LOVE that Pike is mentioned several times.
Not too happy to read that he’s “injured’ AGAIN!
However, injured is way better than dead!

I’ll LOVE this movie–no doubt about it–if PIKE is alive and well at the end!

210. TrekMadeMeWonder - March 8, 2013

Is there a Star Trek movie here somehere?

211. Desstruxion - March 8, 2013

I hope that these are false spoilers. The synopsis above is not Star Trek in any recognizable form. This may be the first “Trek” film that I skip.

212. YankeeWhite - March 8, 2013

#34. Jefferies Tuber
I’m right there with you! I can totally see April’s decommissioned Enterprise coming into play after the nu-E gets critically damaged. It would also be a wonderful variation of the ‘crew getting an updated/new ship’ theme (Refit/1701-A and TNG 1701-D/1701-E). This time it’s an old, outdated model. But it’s there only hope to succeed!

213. Clinton - March 8, 2013

Read the first item or two, then stopped. I did find it interesting that they shuffled things a bit. I wonder if it was in reaction to feedback on the IMAX trailer. If so, that’s fine. That’s kind of what test screenings are all about.

214. SB - March 8, 2013

Over 200 posts arguing about whether or not Captain James T. Kirk was a cocksman.

*sigh*

215. Danpaine - March 8, 2013

210. TrekMadeMeWonder – March 8, 2013
Is there a Star Trek movie here somehere?

211. Desstruxion – March 8, 2013
I hope that these are false spoilers. The synopsis above is not Star Trek in any recognizable form. This may be the first “Trek” film that I skip.

———————————————————–

Yeah, I’m glad you mentioned this. So it’s not just me thinking what I’ve seen so far is not terribly compelling, much less something resembling a good Trek film. Hopefully the finished product will turn out to be impressive, but so far STID simply seems to me like another generic CGI-heavy action-fest.

…and whoever said it seems like TPTB are trying to shoehorn too much material into a two-hour movie, I agree.

216. The Last Vulcan - March 8, 2013

@ 216. Danpaine – “STID simply seems to me like another generic CGI-heavy action-fest.” Yeah, let’s face it. It is. That’s what sells half a billion dollar worth of tickets and pushes massive DVD and PPV sales. It’s not MY Trek either, but IMHO we had all better just abandon any hopes of a Classic Trek-style movie ever again hitting the big screen. There may be some hope on TV but that’s going to be at least 3-4 years away if ever. However, I’d like to call BS on the assembled multitudes who say “Oh because Kirk does that and Spock does this and the Big E does the other thing I’m not gonna go see the movie.” #1, that’s just pointless troll whining and #2, believe me, Paramount won’t miss your ticket money as they’ll be too busy counting the hundreds of millions of dollars piling into their bank accounts.

So… can I say that I love JJ-Trek? Nope. I can’t even truly say that I like it. But it’s the product of the creative choices which have had to be made to shoehorn the movie franchise out of the 80s style of filmmaking, so whether you like it or not, live with it as that’s all you’re gonna get. It’s either that or learn to love Mignogna’s takes on the franchise (which IMHO again is a fate worse than the agonizer booth). :)

217. LJ - March 8, 2013

I’d like to second #217 – we were all going to get to the point where Trek got beyond our generation. In all entertainment, as in life, it’s adapt or die. We see this in comic books all the time, Doctor Who ( TV’s longest running sci-fi series), etc. It was bound to happen that a new vision would take over, and as far s I’m concerned I’d rather that, and Trek live, than it get stuck in a retro quagmire like franchises such as Buck Rogers and Dan Dare.

218. LJ - March 8, 2013

I know a lot of people have been commenting on what appears like Kirk’s sexual wiles in the new movie. It’s interesting to compare Kirks (plural) and Picard. In some ways, it seems like alt-Kirk is enjoying prime-Picard’s reckless youth – maybe resulting in a similarly rounded and grounded character. OTH prime-Kirk went from being a bookworm, to a risk-taker, to a man unsure of his position in the world. On balance, I prefer prime-Kirk’s character progression (ESP. Movie Kirk), however I’m keen to see the results if JJ Trek is offering a Kirk/Picard hybrid in later films.

219. LJ - March 8, 2013

All the people complaining this ‘is not Star Trek’, Trek always had allegory, political, ethical, etc. what we are seeing now is a level of story we’ve never had a budget for before. If the message of peace, diversity, progression comes out on top of Harrison’s agenda, how is that not Trek? Trek is not about the events that happen, rather the characters and how they deal with those events. If the characters deal with events a la prime Kirk, Spock and McCoy, then it’s Trek for me.

220. pastor - March 8, 2013

Stop it, you all know perfectly well that this movie is going to be awesome, yes not true trek, but true trek is for TV, nowadays because of the high cost, movies must be explosions and yes a bit on the sexual side as well, sex is not dirty its just a sin, that must be cleanse like any other. As King David said, you know David right, Dr. McCoy’s ancestor: King David said in sin did my father and mother made me.

About peace and love: Gene Roddenbery created ST about peace in the future, it;s not my idea, me and my house are with God, at war not peace;
I’ hate war that is why I’ want to help God in it, as a soldier of Christ: read 1st. THESSA. 5:3, Me, peace and love, boy somebody got me wrong that time, must be cuz of my disconnected writting’s.

I’ know that some don’t care: I’m not a fundamentalist, they want peace, I’m not a catholic, they want peace also, I’m not a Pentacostal or evangelical, they all want peace, I’m at war and will remain at war until the true Christ comes, the first christ (notice the small “c”) will come first and bring peace to the world, I’ won’t fall for his tricks. Will you?, He is not born, those are movies, he comes in big metal round horses…yes you can laugh, I’ did, but it’s still true.

The people that drank poison powder juice were like the ones in most churches all over the place right now in the country, taking money away from people. they are not true Christians, they will commit THE FALLING AWAY: 2nd. THESSA. 2:3, because they don’t read…now about Star Trek: yes thank you…Just see the movie will you, as for me ST (new) will only be dead no matter how awesome they get when and if they become stupid with sexual, actual in for face sex. The first JJ movie 2009 was it, with kirk and a green boy and not a girl, lol I would run out so fast out of that theatre I would hurt people doing it.

For those that want boy and boy or girl and girl: get your own Star Trek, I’ truly love all my friends that practice adultery, or any sin period. That is why I talk to them but as I said before in obedience I’ cannot more then what I’ve stated before: The pearls are not mind, and even if they were I’ would still obey.

About bringing the Bible into a discussion; ST started it, not me.
True and False Religion is all over the trek universe…

OK so many of you can now relax, out of a gesture of good will I will now Shut UP, but provoke me…remember I’m a soldier of the Lord.

I’ as a Christian, I’ have the best sex with my wife in all positions…

221. dmduncan - March 8, 2013

Look, THIS Kirk is not the James T. Kirk from TOS.

Yet.

How does that translate? THIS Kirk has to be different in some ways so that there is a space between the two Kirks, a space that the younger must cross to become the Kirk we know.

Those of you who are arguing that he should be exactly the same are trying to deny the principle of growth, and you are arguing for a more cartoonish Kirk that some others of us do NOT want to see.

So, with all due respect, may you NOT get what you want.

222. pastor - March 8, 2013

don’t provoke

223. sean - March 8, 2013

Well, I can think of at least one occasion where OG Kirk was looking for a casual roll in the hay. I can’t recall the episode at the moment, but it concludes with Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty in the transporter room. They’re going to go down for shore leave and Kirk says something to the effect of ‘There’s this bar where the women, the women are….’ and he stops short as Spock stares at him, clearly unmoved/unaware of what he’s referring to. The other 3 decide to go down without him. The clear implication being they were going to the bar to get laid.

Now keep in mind, just because Kirk may have been fine with casual relationships doesn’t mean he was a ‘lothario’ nor does it mean he treated women poorly (though as I recall he does threaten to spank Elaan, *cringe*).

At any rate, if this so-called threesome is inserted in the film just to show us what a stud Kirk is, I’d be very disappointed. If it’s there to show that this is the future and people don’t have these hangups about sex any longer, I’d probably be fine with that. I guess we’ll just have to wait until May and see how it goes.

224. Curious Cadet - March 8, 2013

@157. Red Dead Ryan,
“Especially if this Sybok is trying to get revenge against Spock for not being able to save his homeworld and resorts to targeting Earth in retaliation. That seems to be what the source article hints at.”

Not sure I draw the same conclusions.

Whoever the villain is, whatever the basis for their revenge, their motivation is the same: Starfleet, if not the Federation is going down the wrong path. Starfleet is on Earth, Earth is the seat of the Federation, which is why Earth is the target (and of course Vulcan is gone). Assuming its Sybok, it’s unlikely he blames the destruction of Vulcan on Starfleet, much less Spock. If that were the case, there would be no need for introducing April and the Prime Directive so prominently in the prequel comic, and the film.

Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams might pander to 13 year-old boys with their movies, but it’s hard for me to believe they would wholesale repeat the villain’s motivations from the last movie, which they in turn already borrowed from Nemesis. I realize movie franchises are rebooted every few years, but to do so here seems excessive.

Again, if its Sybock, it’s more likely he, like April, resists the Federations arbitrary application of the Prime Directive, meddling in some world’s affairs while turning a blind eye to the plight of others. And what modern parallel does that sound like? Anything could motivate such a man to revenge, including the death of his family as a direct result of Federation policies he has been fighting against all his life.

On the other hand, these are the guys who gave us the decidedly two-dimensional, cardboard Nero.

225. sean - March 8, 2013

Folks, it will not be Sybok. They aren’t going to borrow a c-rate villain from one of the worst Trek movies of all time.

226. Michael - March 8, 2013

“They” were right about Admiral Marcus.

“They” are right about Khan.

227. I know nothing!!!! - March 8, 2013

Son Of MJ Said

****** Plus Weller is April!!!! get used to it!!!!!********

228. Jack - March 8, 2013

75. Don’t get me wrong, I liked your post — I just really picture these guys literally going, “hey, if Kirk’s a _____-hound, why not…”

Kirk’s lovelife has always been a little unhealthy. Sure, sex ain’t bad. But there was always this sense that the character was constantly beating himself up for something…

229. Curious Cadet - March 8, 2013

@224. sean,
At any rate, if this so-called threesome is inserted in the film just to show us what a stud Kirk is, I’d be very disappointed. If it’s there to show that this is the future and people don’t have these hangups about sex any longer, I’d probably be fine with that.”

Here’s the thing — in all likelihood the producers are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They know sex sells. Kirk gives them license to explore sex, and only in Trek do you get to explore alien sex. So it’s kind of irresistible. Most likely they are trying to provide context for Kirk’s emotion growth with women, and yes they could make the lame argument that they are only depicting the progressive, liberal nature of the future of sex.

However, this is a current film. It will be seen through the moral filters of today’s society. To put Kirk in a casual sexual relationship will be to invite modern interpretation, which is why such scenes in a film tend to show moral corruption of a character. This will be no different regardless of the context. Whether it is justified is a matter of opinion. It can only objectify women regardless of the intent of its inclusion, whether or not Kirk tells us he is in love with them both and has been dating them exclusively. He could do that without showing them in bed. The image of Kirk in bed with two hot babes is going to transcend almost any dialogue used to justify it. The question is whether that objectification can be justified by later actions of the character … for some. There are those for whom there is never any justification for it.

230. The Duke of Earl - March 8, 2013

#8 I agree with you 100%.

I have given up on ‘Nu-Trek’ and will stick with my TOS DVD’s

That’s proper Star Trek….

231. TrekMadeMeWonder - March 8, 2013

Is it really the called “Nibiru mission?”

That is really, really, really stupid.

232. scottevill - March 8, 2013

I’m almost relieved that the spoilers are sort of minor — since I couldn’t help but read them. The only real piece of news there is the identity of Weller’s character. Nothing on who Harrison really is or how the Klingons factor in.

The rest, we had already worked out from the trailers/previews.

233. Anthony Lewis - March 8, 2013

EPIC LOLZ at the people upset about Kirk with two women. And this so called disrespect to women.

If you had such high moral grounds you would absolutely HATE the original series. There is barely an episode that goes by where this isn’t at least one sexist moment in those shows.

Welcome to the sixties.

234. Jack - March 8, 2013

I kind of wish spoiler warnings would be a bit more detailed: like ‘reveals specific details about Kirk after Nibiru, reveals details about London, reveals identity of Weller…”

I know, I know — it said spoiler — I was more irritated when this stuff appeared in the Shatner thread. Hadn’t there been an old rule here about keeping spoilers off non-movie related topics?

235. Jack - March 8, 2013

135. Johnny. Agreed.

236. Curious Cadet - March 8, 2013

@227. Michael,
“They” were right about Admiral Marcus. “They” are right about Khan.”

Not necessarily.

Using the same dumb logic that could make Harrison Khan (and I address that to the writers in the event it’s true), how about this one:

Weller/Marcus finds Khan in the Botany Bay. But this time Khan manages to take over Marcus’ ship, enlisting some of his crew. After studying everything there is to know about Starfleet, Khan decides to become Marcus and infiltrate Starfleet to take over from within. Either through plastic surgery or other alien technology, he alters his appearance and has been masquerading as Admiral Marcus ever since.

And as long as we’re going off the deep end, Harrison is THE Harrison from Space Seed, his identity assumed by Joaquin, as are members of the rest of Marcus’ ship. Want more absurdity? Carol Marcus knows Khan is impersonating her father, but is being kept in check because Khan has the real Marcus prisoner and will kill him if she doesn’t co-operate. Se enlists Kirk to help her free her father.

But wait, here’s another equally ridiculous story — Robert April discovers Khan has taken over his old pals identity when Marcus visits April’s war planet. April seeking revenge uses Khan’s identity changing technology to reverse-age himself, and change his identity so nobody in Starfleet recognizes him. Then he teams up with Khan, using him to take over Starfleet for his own purposes.

The end of the movie has Khan and April, albeit disguised as Marcus and Harrison battering each other to the death over control of Starfleet, after Kirk has set them against each other.

Sound ridiculous? No more than what it would take for Harrison to be Khan. And just as satisfying …

237. filmboy - March 8, 2013

I love how you all have used so many posts, words, sentences on debating whether this Kirk is a womanizer and more broadly whether this new film series seeks to objectify women. Kirk always was a lothario in the Original Series, he was committment-phobic, he was a cad. This “revelation” of his frolic with the catwomen is more business as usual for Kirk. It is not really out of character for him.

As far as the claim of the objectification of women in this new film series, I call BS. Uhura is, in this series, a strong independent woman who plays a vital role in the action. She holds her own in a relationship with Spock (no easy task) and is consistently involved in key moments on the Enterprise. So I think it unfair to say that the new films lean sexist.

With that out of the way, I can’t believe no one is talking about the fact that we know who Weller is playing and how that might impact the identity of Cumby’s villain and the overall plot of STID?

The fact that Weller is Marcus leads great clout to the idea that Cumberbatch is a de-aged April. However there are those nagging shots of the Augments from the Botany Bay, Harrison’s superior physical traits, and his assertion of being better than Kirk that all cast doubt on April.

I mean it is possible that April de-aged and was enhanced using Augment DNA. But that seems alittle far fetched for me. The question would be why? It would seem based on the IDW comic series running now that April is preoccupied with helping the people of Phaedus to liberate themselves. I doubt he would be too concerned with going to be de-aged and enhanced, then seek revenge on Starfleet. It just doesn’t add up.

Rather, I think the IDW comic is meant to give Admiral Marcus alittle of a backstory and establish his place in this new universe. His relationship to April and the fact there was another USS Enterprise between the NX-01 and Kirk’s. I really don’t believe that Cumby is April.

However, I still think Khan is a choice that fits. I know, I know Cumby is white! But here is the thing, only the fans are going to be angry about that fact. The average moviegoer is going to care less about the fact that the original Khan was not white and this one is. Let’s face it here folks, Abrams and company are aiming to bring in the non fans here. Sure they want us to be happy, but not at the expense of losing casual or non-fans.

If Khan, I am unsure how they will work him into the story. Where are the augments being kept? Did the Klingons find the Botany Bay and not Kirk? Are they holding the contents of the BB and Cumby is looking to get it back? With each reveal, the overall plot of this film becomes more interesting to me. My money is still on Cumby being Khan as it was 6 months ago. But how he will fit into what we already know kind of eludes me right now.

238. Silvereyes - March 8, 2013

# 157, Read Dead Ryan

I agree with you 200%

239. Copper Based Blood - March 8, 2013

#228.

I don’t quite get your reference? Peter Weller is Admiral Marcus, right?

240. TrekMadeMeWonder - March 8, 2013

TOS TrekMadeMeWonder but this Trek has turned me off completely.

Bye. Bye. Star Trek.

241. Copper Based Blood - March 8, 2013

Sorry That’s #227 I know nothing.

242. I know nothing!!!! - March 8, 2013

#239 Copper Based Blood

The reference is from a while back when I did a post & the troll “son of MJ” was quite rude to a theory I had & I did say a “theory”. But mr “Know-it-all” said quite rudely & smugly “Weller is April…Get used to it.”

Doesn’t “Son of MJ” look a fool now!!!!

243. Copper Based Blood - March 8, 2013

#242 I know nothing,

Yeah but who cares? We’ll all find out in May anyway.

244. I am not Herbert (retired) - March 8, 2013

…sounds like another hot mess (that goes against everything that Star Trek stands for)… =(

245. Trekkiegal63 - March 8, 2013

#237 filmboy:

Kirk always was a lothario in the Original Series, he was committment-phobic, he was a cad.

Evidence? Name episodes. Post transcripts from said episodes. I am amused how so many people are saying ‘yes, well, he was a lothario just because I say so, so there!’ without backing it up. I listed the reasons he wasn’t actually as bad as many are making him out to be, using canon to support my argument, in post #114. I also posted two episode transcripts, one for “Dagger of the Mind”, post #126 and “Wink of an Eye” post #136 that show Kirk being coerced (in one case mind controlled, in the other having his life and the life of his crew threatened). So, where’s yours?

246. Curious Cadet - March 8, 2013

@239, 241 Copper Based Blood,

I think it’s a jab at how the Weller-is-April camp was completely wrong.

But as I pointed out in 236, and then filmboy went on to illustrate my point in 237, as long as fans are willing to believe these ridiculous convolutions to keep Khan and others as plausible identities for Harrison, anything remains possible.

Why couldn’t Weller be April? If he could de-age and conceal his identity to be Harrison, he could just as easily impersonate Marcus, and who better to know him and pull it off than his former captain?

The fact is, as long as fans are willing to entertain the absurd lengths to which they would have to go to make Harrison be Khan, April, etc … And assume we are being lied to by the producers, then really anything is possible. How can you discount any character, or any possible scenario?

247. NuFan - March 8, 2013

Hah! Look at the old timey fans whining away like they’re the most important people in the audience.

I think it was their unbelievable selfishness that led to them being blown out the airlock in the first place.

248. YankeeWhite - March 8, 2013

More spoilers that echo/confirm what’s been posted. With no translation needed. :P
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/star-trek-into-darkness-extended-footage-reaction#null

249. Gary S - March 8, 2013

This is for Everybody.
Based on these spoilers ,
What do you think the story is for STID?
Your best guess.
You can be as detailed as you like .

250. Danpaine - March 8, 2013

216. The Last Vulcan – March 8, 2013

Oh hey, don’t get me wrong – I’ve already got tickets for the advanced IMAX screening…I didn’t mean to insinuate I wasn’t GOING…:)

And I agree, at 46, I know “my” Trek(s) are long past.

I just hope this isn’t tween schlock.

251. Nony - March 8, 2013

@237 filmboy

“As far as the claim of the objectification of women in this new film series, I call BS. Uhura is, in this series, a strong independent woman who plays a vital role in the action. She holds her own in a relationship with Spock (no easy task) and is consistently involved in key moments on the Enterprise. So I think it unfair to say that the new films lean sexist.”

Yet even the developed, accomplished Uhura, a character I really liked, was objectified in XI from Kirk’s – and the audience’s – voyeuristic point of view. Kirk watching her from under the bed as she took her clothes off, and therefore letting us watch her? That’s a choice the director and writers made. A group of men sat down and said, “in this scene, the camera is going to focus on the sexualized body of the strong and independent woman as a man violates her privacy without her knowledge.” It was not necessary to the plot. It had already been established in other ways that Kirk was immature. Uhura could have come in and brushed her hair, or changed her shoes, or started doing schoolwork. The fact that they *chose* the route that momentarily visually weakened her and made her vulnerable just goes to show how ingrained sexism is in the movies. We often don’t think about it, because it’s so normal for filmmakers to make choices like that, that we say “it was just one ten-second scene, it doesn’t matter, because women do other stuff throughout the movie.” Except it does matter. The movie is *not* a sexist movie – it’s a lot better than many of the action/adventure/sci-fi movies out there! But Uhura was treated in a sexist way in that scene, and it’s our duty as responsible and intelligent consumers of media not to just accept stuff like that, even if it’s only one scene, but to ask why it happens and question whether it’s doing our society any good. Because film is far-reaching, and it’s powerful.

It’s okay if you want to move on from this topic and discuss Marcus! You don’t have to respond to me, I don’t mind. I just hope somebody is learning something from all my preachy posts on this subject the last day or so. It’s more important than a lot of people probably realize. I hope boborci is reading as well, if he’s around, because he’s one of the people who is in a position to do a little something about the inequalities in our society.

252. Curious Cadet - March 8, 2013

@248 YankeeWhite,

Interesting, but it doesn’t clarify whether Pike argues for Kirk’s reinstatement as First officer, or Marcus.

Perhaps the most interesting take away is the confirmation that it is indeed the Enterprise which crashes into SF bay …

253. somejackball - March 8, 2013

why was there the big secrecy over Weller’s part? i mean just by being Carol’s father, doesn’t spoil anything.

254. somejackball - March 8, 2013

@96, google: star trek animated M’Ress

255. Trekkiegal63 - March 8, 2013

#251 Nony:

Once again, very well said.

256. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

unfortunately, yes… it IS ‘tween schlock… =(

…and mindless “action”… =(

makes me feel sick… =(

257. Curious Cadet - March 8, 2013

@251 Nony,
“I hope boborci is reading as well, if he’s around, because he’s one of the people who is in a position to do a little something about the inequalities in our society.”

Orci is reading. He’s always around. But, not to burst your bubble, this topic has been discussed voraciously since ST09, yet we still get a casual scene with kirk and two cat women (with tails) in bed. Either Orci isn’t listening, doesn’t care, or can’t do anything. After the Transformers, the more I see from him, the less impressed I am with his involvement in these matters. Most of his films are juvenile boy’s fantasy’s which tend to perpetrate all manner of adolescent stereotypes. To be fair, films are a collaborative work, and I don’t blame him entirely. But at the end of the day the films he works on perpetuate these kinds of objectivism not curb it. He’s a well paid member of the Hollywood machine, showing no signs of giving up his involvement with blockbuster movies and Hollywood’s narrow-minded focus for them. As long as sex sells, and sophomoric humor puts butts in seats, my guess is your objections are falling on deaf ears.

258. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

what kind of IDIOCY is a “captains and first officers meeting”???

IMBECILIC!! SHAME on you Boborci! You sir, are FIRED!!

…start working on Star Wars, were FANTASY is par for the course… =(

259. Curious Cadet - March 8, 2013

253. somejackball – March 8, 2013
“why was there the big secrecy over Weller’s part? i mean just by being Carol’s father, doesn’t spoil anything.”

Ah but it does. We can no longer speculate that Weller is Khan (Well, those who are willing to try to bend spoons with their minds can), or anybody else for that matter. It also shows a pattern of truth with respect to Orci’s statement’s of which actor was playing a canon and new character. This more or less guarantees Harrison is a canon character.

260. RAMA - March 8, 2013

I honestly can’t believe what I’m reading…when did Trek fans become so prudish??? How many women did Kirk have implied sex with or relations with in TOS?? Quite a few. I see nothing wrong with a single adult man or woman (no double standard here) having consensual sex as the please (within reason of course right WIlt?). The only reason that it may appear that Kirk had less sex in TOS was the fact that they skirted around network sensors and showed things like putting their boots back on, and because they didn’t have a budget to use makeup on the aliens he had sex with, which he certainly DID do…different ecosystems, different DNA notwithstanding. So give it a rest you crybabies.

261. Josh C. - March 8, 2013

From this and the comics, my best guess is this – that it’s all about the Prime Directive and how “right” it is:

1) In the comics, Kirk refuses to violate the prime directive, resulting in the genocide of an alien race. This occurrence makes Kirk waiver on the Prime Directive, which is why he decides to violate it on Nibiru.

2) The events from point 1 also act as a “final straw” for Admiral Marcus, who I think will ultimately be behind the events of the movie, especially since he was personally involved in covering up April’s aid to those aliens.

3) As to what Harrison’s motivations might be, I don’t know. He could be a human-looking alien whose species was hurt by the prime directive, or perhaps he had an experience like Marcus and April seeing something terrible happen because of it. Or – and this is just throwing it out there – he’s April’s son (who perhaps dies due to Kirk’s actions).

4) About the only piece here that isn’t speculation is that Harrison clearly seems to help blackmail or otherwise convince starfleet officers to aid him in what he’s trying to do.

Things that I can’t really fit into this theory yet:

5) Harrison’s (apparent) super abilities. I’m not sure we can say for sure he has them, but the trailers suggest he does. If he’s a human-looking alien and not human, that could help explain that, though.

6) What are the pods with people in them?

262. Trekkiegal63 - March 8, 2013

#257 Curious Cadet:

As long as sex sells, and sophomoric humor puts butts in seats, my guess is your objections are falling on deaf ears.

Yet issues can’t be addressed unless awareness is made, thus discussing these issues is actually a good thing. If just one person has followed this thread and then thought more about these issues then they have in the past, that’s one more than yesterday. And if they, in-turn, go on to discuss it with others, even better!

As it is, there is a non-profit organization that researches this issue and publishes reports/statistics: http://www.seejane.org/

Their purpose (as copied and pasted from their website:

Founded in 2004 by Academy Award®-winning actor and advocate Geena Davis, the Institute and its programming arm, See Jane, are at the forefront of changing female portrayals and gender stereotypes in children’s media and entertainment. The Institute is uniquely positioned to spotlight gender inequalities at every media and entertainment company through cutting-edge research, education, training, strategic guidance and advocacy programs. Our mission is to work within the entertainment industry to dramatically alter how girls and women are reflected in media.

263. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

there is nothing wrong with sex…

…at least when it is not used in such a stupidly contrived attempt at a “humorous character reference”… =(

264. Josh C. - March 8, 2013

I was looking at TOS first season episodes about the prime directive that, had they gone differently, could either produce Harrison or make Harrison dislike the prime directive.

One possibility is Miri. If Harrison was on a ship who responded, and the Captain decided they couldn’t do anything due to the Prime Directive, that could make someone who doesn’t already dislike the idea really not like it.

The fact that Harrison might be “canon” may or may not tell us anything. He could be anyone from Khan to some guy who showed up in one episode at one point. Without more information, I’m not sure we can really speculate with much reliability as to who he really is.

265. Craiger - March 8, 2013

Is Kirk allways going to get demoted then promoted if he violates the Prime Directive? That would get repetitive. In TOS Kirk did that a lot and never get demoted.

Maybe this is what Harrison doesn’t like about Starfleet and his actions force Starfleet to make changes in the Prime Directive. Maybe it will be ok to violate if it means saving a crewmember? Maybe a person Harrison lost because of the Prime Directive is what causes Harrison to go on his rampage against Starfleet?

Also in a Voyager episode Janeway had violated the Prime Directive but had no choice because they couldn’t break free from that planet that was out sync with Voyager’s time and thus Voyager became part of that planets people’s history. They even started calling Voyager the Sky Ship.

266. MJ - March 8, 2013

@197 “And the claim the cat sequence is not disrespectful or sexist “in the slightest” is dubious at best. There is a legitimate objection to the cat sequence if its sole purpose is sexual interest from the audience. That has nothing to do with Puritanical values.”

How about this — this is simply a dumbass idea, and if is was needed for a plot convenience, then the writers needed to think harder.

This ain’t good Star Trek. It’s that simple.

Just like if I was watchng some pourn, and Captain Kirk showed up. I’d say, this is not good pourn.

You all go on with your silly debates about morals and plot needs, etc. etc. I’ll just go what I see and know. I know good Star Trek when I see it, and this ain’t it.

267. scottevill - March 8, 2013

@249 Gary S:

The story is “agent off the reservation causes havoc.” Kirk’s violation of PD parallels how he also has “off the reservation” tendencies. These are compared and contrasted as we learn more about what makes both Kirk and Harrison tick.

Harrison has been “enhanced” by Starfleet – secretly – and what sets him off is learning the source of his enhancement: DNA extracted from Botany Bay sleepers. OR he actually is one of the sleepers, awakened and re-educated.

Why is Starfleet doing this? It’s in a post-9/11 mindset.

268. Marja - March 8, 2013

Smike, sorry but most p*rn does not reduce men to s*x objects as much as it does women. Otherwise m*n, the largest number of its consumers, would not watch it as much as they do. As a fantasy for certain men, it is a power fantasy, in this feminist’s opinion. I object to the p*rnification of American society.
SPOILERS

That said, the idea of Kirk and two, erm, cat-women could be based in the idea of liberal sexuality in that the felines, as stated above, may be a pair. More likely, in the socially retarded Hollywood ideal, it is there to signify Kirk’s disappointment in himself, his rebellion, and his consequent “negative” behavior.

#34 Jeffries T’r – I for one hope they KEEP the new Enterprise style. I thought and still think, the ship is gorgeous, updated, and, speaking as a retired sea service member, I love the designers’ tribute to the old-style Quartermaster (helmsman) rating designator of an 8-pointed wheel on the front of the Engineering hull.

#37 Nony, I agree; I hate the perception of “Other” women being used for the sake of the “male gaze,” especially pubescent males. I hated it with Gaila [“Orion women are all sexually voracious and therefore may be exploited without compunction”] and I will not like it any better if that is the presentation of Kirk with the [Caitian?] women. I do not like the racist/sexist implications of tHollywood scripts and am saddened by its inclusion in ST 2009.

These, along with AUKirk’s verbal abuse by Uncle Frank [cut scenes or no], are big “clues” in the backstory of a very different Kirk in the AU, but I don’t like Hollywood sexism. That being said I appreciate the presentation of Uhura as a strong, accomplished professional.

#39, Andrew, It only says “Kirk is sent back to the Academy” – not that he was busted to cadet rank. He may have been sent to do a desk job and then been rescued by Pike, to retain at least the grade of 0-4 (LCDR) to be Pike’s first officer.

#63 mhansen0207, thanks for your many great points; I am glad you support strong female characters [per yr earlier post] and you make a great point about young men. I agree on your every point in #63, especially re: Spock. I am so tired of hearing people diss “Emo Spock” – wouldn’t almost any part-human character change his/her fundamental behavior after the genocide of their race and the death of a parent? This also leads to AU Kirk’s significantly different behavior.

#74 J Tenuto, this immature behavior of drinking and sleeping around may be the model AU Kirk retreats to; it was his mode of operation when he was younger and may thus be familiar and “comfortable” for him in response to such a self-inflicted professional setback.

269. Craiger - March 8, 2013

What about Kirk in ST 2009 with the Green Orion girl? Kirk was a womanizer in TOS. Even Sisko told Dax Kirk had a reputation as a ladies man. Didn’t they also say Kirk would romance Carol Marcus in STID.

270. Lancelot Narayan - March 8, 2013

I saw the same footage today in London.

271. Green - March 8, 2013

Dammit JJ when I said you should include some TAS species like the Caitians and Edosians I didn’t mean you should have Kirk sleep with them.

272. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

…it would be nice IF Uhura WAS as “a strong, accomplished professional.”

so far, she is just there to pussy-whip nu-Spock… =(

273. Green - March 8, 2013

In any case, does this make Kirk a furry?

274. AJ - March 8, 2013

The one precedent for demoting Kirk is of course, STIV: ‘The Mitigating Circumstances’

275. Buzz Cagney - March 8, 2013

I think the writers may have read that Kirk was a pussy chaser and misunderstood!
Even Batman was happy with just one Catwoman!

276. ThePortugueseStarTrekFan - March 8, 2013

OK first of all:

* Adm Marcus sends Kirk back to the Academy and Pike convinces him to put him as his XO…NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

* He does not claim the villain IS SYBOK….he SPECULATES IT MAY BE SYBOK ACCORDING TO RUMOURS HE HEARD….(probably here)

277. Curious Cadet - March 8, 2013

@275 Buzz,

LOL, I see what you did there … ;-)

278. A Stranger in a Strange Land - March 8, 2013

@ American Pastor etc.

Funny reading all the hateful comments from closed-minded, bigoted moralists who are everything they claim they hate about normal Americans that happen to be Christians.

Face it, trekkies: YOU ARE the fringe element. You obsess over the made-up fake history and motivation of fictional characters designed to separate you from your money.

You wear your fringe perversions/loser status as a badge of honor yet deny even simple open-mindedness to others that dare trespass on your turf.

Sickening.

Surely you have your reward

279. star trackie - March 8, 2013

Looks like a lot of you people have waited for 4 years to let your movie be ruined by sex. That takes the cake. Oh well, better you than me!! Besides the obvious fact, that I’ll actually SEE the movie before I make any kind of judgement, good or bad, I can promise you this, Kirk rolling in the hay with a couple of cat ladies isn’t going to ruin anything for me!

280. Sebastian S. - March 8, 2013

My only concern from the spoilers is the idea of Kirk being busted back to exec again. His rise back to the captain’s chair will be kind of a rehash of his arc in ST09. But I like the idea of the first five year mission having not happened yet (even if it sort of negates the IDW comics so far….).

But at any rate, the movie sounds exciting. And Cumberbatch will be brilliant as John Harrison. Already a huge fan of Sherlock (BBC’s Sherlock, not that “Elementary” school-level crap on CBS).

Overall, I’m looking forward to this.

281. Keachick - March 8, 2013

Wow. I am a bit sick of all that I read here.

So many on this thread are calling out the makers of this film for their apparent sexual objectification of the two catwomen and of Kirk’s behaviour, saying that he is disrespectful. Well, we don’t know that for sure at all.

One poster made a comment about Kirk “creepily” eying a yeoman in a TOS episode or two, yet this Kirk lived with a FATHER, mother and brother and it seems, for the most part, had an ideal childhood. So where did he learn to do what this poster thought he was doing that was so awful?

“Kirk never went to bed with a women unless (1) he had a relationship with her (Carol, Ruth, perhaps Edith, etc.) or (2) he had to rescue his ship and utilized his masculine charms as a ruse. It has never been casual.”

Here is my problem. How is it less disrespectful to use your own (sexual) charms as a ruse against another person in order to effect escape/rescue or whatever? For me, being deceitful towards a person you are being intimate with is showing the ultimate disrespect!

The message I am picking up here is that it was OK for Kirk to use his sexual charms/desires for a *greater* purpose, like rescuing the Enterprise, but not because he may be genuinely interested, curious, turned on by a couple of catwomen he meets in a bar. Surely, when he uses his charms for a *greater* purpose, as many claim he did in many of the TOS episodes that people have mentioned, then that is truly objectifying another person without giving little, if any, consideration to their feelings.

If the intimacy between Kirk and two catwomen was consensual and mutually beneficial, then no harm done. In that scene, on face value, Kirk could also be regarded as a sex object, especially if he is filmed undressed in any way and engaging in some mutual show of affection. On the other hand, none of them need be regarded as simply just “sex objects” (which they are not), but time out to see a man engaging in a mutually satisfying liaison and possibly the beginnings of friendship. If I am correct, there is no inherent deception on anyone’s part and quite likely part on friendly terms, until (hopefully) next time they meet again…

Before questioning the reasoning, attitudes etc of the writers, people should first take a look at their own perceptions of events, as well as what are often really very negative projections…

282. Peter - March 8, 2013

#8 Yes, Kirk was always respectful of Women, however that was when he was raised in a two parent home with a strong Father figure. That strong example never had a chance to become imprinted on him and thus he became (pardon the pun) incredibly cocky in the JJ-verse.

283. Keachick - March 8, 2013

#188 – No Gene Roddenberry did not create Star Trek to promote sex. Sex promotes itself because we are sexual beings…Get real, people!

284. WillH85 - March 8, 2013

Well this has me more stoked for the movie. Only a few more months now.

285. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

We are SPIRITUAL BEINGS having a PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE.

Sex is an animalistic element of that (human) experience… ;-)

286. Phil - March 8, 2013

@274. So, the mitigating circumstances was that Starfleet came to it’s senses and realised that they had no business whatsoever of handing the keys to the most advanced ship in the fleet to a green as grass kid who was hours away from being expelled from the Academy.

Part of me is giddy that my point of view on the kiddie to Captain promotion has been vindicated, but I also know that the producers need to find a way to get Kirk back in the chair…again. I’m wondering if that is the new MO for Trek movies, instead of killing off the bad guy, lets see how many creative ways we can get Kirk demoted then promoted again?

Even with all the excitement, Trek movies are very predictiable.

287. The Last Vulcan - March 8, 2013

@ 250. Danpaine – Yeah, I’m gonna crawl across broken glass to be at the first showing. And I’m 55 so I feel your pain(e) :)

The IGN video spoilers are AMAZING. Kirk becomes Pike’s #1, and Cumby kills Pike. Spock is Capt. of the 1701 and it’s the ship that crashes into the buildings in SanFran. WOW.

288. Green - March 8, 2013

@278

There’s nothing wrong with a sex scene and people’s complaints have nothing to do with them being prudish. People are annoyed because it’s most likely just being done to satirize the character.

We’ll see once the movie’s out if the scene fits or if it’s just fanservice that misses the point.

289. Al Levi (I'll go back to Tox Uthat next post) - March 8, 2013

#136

My line concerning saving the E recognizes your point.

Sex was alluded to in 60s television and I see that in the production. I will admit to “filling in the spaces” a little, adding some kind of Tv logic. The expanded Trek universe also sees Kirk as an active romancer. However, If I allow for reasoned opposition, you make accurate points very well.

#131

The discussion of horn dog Kirk should have ended after your post. You get it, too.

290. Trekkiegal63 - March 8, 2013

#281 Keachick:

How is it less disrespectful to use your own (sexual) charms as a ruse against another person in order to effect escape/rescue or whatever?

It seems we are destined to forever disagree on this topic, Keachick.

To answer your question, in most cases with TOS Kirk, except those women, i.e. Ruth, Carol, Janice, Edith whom he showed interest in beyond sex, it was a case of coercion. I used a transcript from “Wink of an Eye” above and also “Dagger of the Mind”. In “Wink of an Eye” Deela flat out told Kirk he was to be a brood mare because the males of her own race were sterile. She intended to freeze the rest of the crew to use them for the same purpose, speeding up Kirk’s lifespan so he’d exist in their time-space continuum. In essence he was enslaved and threatened with having the rest of his crew enslaved.

Another tidbit of the transcript from that episode, in addition to what I already posted:

KIRK: Hyperacceleration is the key. I have counted only five of them aboard, but they have taken over the ship, and we are under their control due to this acceleration. They are able to speed others up to their level, as they did Compton and me. Presumably, this is enslavement? Those so treated exist at this accelerated level, becoming docile eventually. But when
DEELA: Damaged.
KIRK: Damaged, they age incredibly fast, as though accelerated living
DEELA: Burns them out.
KIRK: Burns them out. Compton was burned out. The device attached to the life-support system produces an extreme, numbing cold. It is my belief that they are turning the Enterprise into a gigantic deep-freeze for purposes only the Scalosians know.
DEELA: Quite correct.
KIRK: The unit has a protective shield which does not allow any physical contact. I don’t know how to destroy it, but its destruction is imperative.
DEELA: The unit will be activated. By the time they hear this, it will be too late. You have remarkable reasoning powers, Captain. You were quite right in almost every assumption.
KIRK: Why are you doing this?
DEELA: Do you really want to know? In a little while it won’t matter to you at all. You’ll be quite happy about it, Just as Compton was.
KIRK: I really want to know.

In “Dagger of the Mind” Helen Noel implanted a suggestion that Kirk loved her via the machine (see my post above with that transcript). In “Elaan of Troyius” Elaan used tears that acted like a potent love potion.

“Elaan of Troyius” transcript:

MCCOY: Did she cry, Jim?
KIRK: What?
MCCOY: Did she cry? Did her tears touch you at any time?
(Kirk looks at his hand.)
MCCOY: Oh, we’re in trouble. Now listen, Jim. Petri told Christine that the Elasian women have a sort of a biochemical substance in their tears that acts like a super love potion. And according to him, it doesn’t wear off.

In “The Gamesters of Triskelion” he was collared with a device that caused agonizing pain should he do anything that displeased his captors.

(All three are fastened securely to the wall, and have collars around their necks.)
GALT: There, Captain. Now you are prepared for your training.
KIRK: How do you know our names?
GALT: The Providers were expecting you, Captain. They arranged your transportation.
KIRK: These Providers of yours, are they
GALT: Correction, Captain. The Providers are not ours. We are theirs.
KIRK: What do they want from us?
GALT: You are to be trained, of course. What other use is there for thralls?
KIRK: Thralls? You must be mistaken. We’re officers of a United spaceship on Federation business.
GALT: There has been no mistake. Your old titles mean nothing here, Captain. You are thralls now. You are to be taken to the training enclosure. (the restraints are released) Come. Places have been prepared for you.

Do you not find it disturbing that the bulk of Kirk’s reputation as a ladies man comes from him either being drugged, held captive and/or tortured? The standard here is ‘well TOS Kirk was often found attractive by alien women and held at gunpoint for sex so its totally okay to show New!Kirk getting it on with two women in bed’! Yeah. No.

291. Marcus - March 8, 2013

Kirk has a scene in bed (back in San Francisco) in bed with two “cat women” ~ Anthony
—————————————————–

While the other aspects are rather interesting, my family decided to not see the movie. Once I saw this particular spoiler, I mentioned it to everyone at home. We decided that J.J.’s new vision of “Star Trek” does not line up with our moral standards.

Thanks for sharing this Anthony. We will now avoid this movie.

292. Ben Yoris - March 8, 2013

@77

A french website having seen the first 35 minutes also claims that’s Pike who convinced Marcus.

293. MJ - March 8, 2013

Keachick: “If the intimacy between Kirk and two catwomen was consensual and mutually beneficial, then no harm done.”

Sure, but I don’t need to see in the movie. Just like I don’t need a scene of scotty on the crapper, or uhura stowing away a box of tampons in her quarters.

Don’t want to see it and don’t need to see it. I’ve got plenty of non-star trek stuff I can watch anytime that has threesome jokes, toilet humor, etc.

Don’t need my Star Trek to have this.

sta rtrackie: “Looks like a lot of you people have waited for 4 years to let your movie be ruined by sex.”

You are not speaking for me. Stop coming across so presumptuous. I don’t like what I have heard about this one single scene and so I am just commenting about this one single scene here. If you don’t like my comments, fine, but don’t try to claim that I will dislike the movie because of this.

294. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

‘Trekkiegal63′ knows (the real) Kirk! Bravo!

295. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

MJ: FULL AGREEMENT

296. MJ - March 8, 2013

Craiger: “What about Kirk in ST 2009 with the Green Orion girl? Kirk was a womanizer in TOS. Even Sisko told Dax Kirk had a reputation as a ladies man. Didn’t they also say Kirk would romance Carol Marcus in STID.”

Yea, but group sex? I mean, sure, I suppose this Kirk may have done that, but do we really need to have it in this movie? What’s next, Scotty reading Tech Journals on the crapper while Sulu sits outside making a joke to Chekov about how Scotty is stinking up the whole ship?

297. B Hennessay! - March 8, 2013

I’m sticking with Garth of Izar. The costume color scheme is identical, a something as small as a ring is super explosive and cellular metamorphisis abilities take care of both the age difference and giving him super jumping powers, etc. He hurts Pike, and they were buddies.

298. Disinvited - March 8, 2013

I’m mulling all these different views of sexual Kirk over. Perhaps more can be learned on the aspect of Prime Kirk’s treatment of women on his away missions by comparing and contrasting with Prime Spock/Romulan Commander in the series episode, THE ENTERPRISE INCIDENT?

I know I enjoyed Spock’s and The Romulan Commander’s metaphorical dance around business, pleasure and relationship more than any male/female relationship depicted in Trek. I even like the way they ended up acknowledging that while the relationship started for less than romantically noble reasons, they parted with great respect for it and each other. Rare, for the 60s and unfortunately apparently still rare if some of the posts here are to be believed.

299. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

…i’d like to see Scotty flushing Keenser down the crapper… ;-)

..and the damn brewery while we’re at at it… =(

300. Johnny - March 8, 2013

This is the first time that I’ve been ashamed to stand among all of you as a Star Trek fan.

Seriously, you people are immature. You have a problem with Kirk sleeping with two cat-women? Have you even seen The Original Series? Kirk is a womanizer. How could everyone here — including a PASTOR have missed this?

That said, how is this going to be any different than the brief scene in ST09 where he sleeps with Gaila, the Orion girl? That’s all it’s going to be, guaranteed. They’re not going to have a drawn out elaborate sex scene or anything like that. This scene is clearly placed in the very beginning of the film, where Kirk is possibly in a conflicted and dark place. Over the film, he is going to grow as a character and eventually end up involved with Carol Marcus — a girl who he has a child with in the prime timeline. The scene is clearly meant to be part of his character arc. It’s ridiculous that anyone can be offended by it.

Star Trek is about much more than —- and is above any one religion. It always has been.

301. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

Re: SEX

romance and respect are dead… there is only “hooking up”… =(

302. Dave H - March 8, 2013

I agree with the many people here that the Kirk multiple partners scene will detract from the movie. If enough of us complain, and when this is pre-screened to audiences, they don’t react well to the scene as well, then JJ will cut the scene from the movie.

So I think those of us who don’t like this scene should complain very actively here. Our complaints might actually help to this scene cut from the movie.

By complaining here, we are thus doing a great service to Star Trek here by categorically rejecting this really poor idea for a scene in the new movie.

303. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

the objection to the group sex is not based on piety… it’s just stupidly unnecessary… and unwelcome… =(

it’s a stupid, immature, “joke”… =(

304. Johnny - March 8, 2013

@Dave H

Seriously? You do realize he’s going to end up with THE woman by the end of the movie, right? Carol Marcus is in the movie!!!

A scene that lasts all of one minute and establishes Kirk’s current mental state is SO going to ruin the movie.

You guys are so childish.

305. DiscoSpock - March 8, 2013

To I am not Herbert:

Liked your point in 301. Who would have thought that Cameron’s Avatar would be so much more mature and realistic in having and interspecies romance and coupling than JJ Trek?

Barbarella has successfully commandeered the Enterprise. I am embarrassed for the Star Trek franchise today.

306. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

what is “Kirk’s current mental state”?

Let’s nail (2) “pussies” like a drunken frat boy?

Thanks, Orci appologist… (eyesroll)

307. Dave H - March 8, 2013

Johnny, you are the childish one. This is not “The Hangover – 23rd Century”. Kirk having group sex (i.e, the immediate inference to it in STID) has no business as a scene in a major Star Trek movie. It just does not fit well.

I feel bad for you, because you don’t really get Star Trek. And you really don’t care about standing up for a quality product here either.

308. MJ - March 8, 2013

@304 “A scene that lasts all of one minute and establishes Kirk’s current mental state is SO going to ruin the movie.”

Why do you people keep insisting that those of us who don’t like the scene think that it is going to “ruin the movie” for us? Stop jumping to this conclusion. I am complaining about a single scene — CAN YOU READ THIS — I am complaining about a single scene.

Of course you all love this scene, so perhaps their is a correlation here to liking this scene and being able to paint everybody who disagrees with you with one large dismissive brush-off, including making shit up like its going to ruin the movie for all of us.

Lame!

309. K-7 - March 8, 2013

#306 “what is “Kirk’s current mental state”? Let’s nail (2) “pussies” like a drunken frat boy? Thanks, Orci appologist… (eyesroll)”

Yep. Like I said earlier:

If the scene with the two pussycats with Kirk really makes it to the final cut, then I think there will be actually three pussies instead of two involved with this scene:

Roberto Orci, Damon Lindelof and Alex Kurtzman.

310. NX-UESPA Class Starship - March 8, 2013

Anyone want to watch Captain Scarlet and The Mysterons?

311. kevan - March 8, 2013

Why is it people only remember facts they way the want to with star trek. I do not get it. So he has a scene with another race and this makes people not want to see it. It has already been discussed about kirks romantic involvement in the old series. Lets also forget what women actors wore in the old series. Based on a spoiler that is surly written better than it has been in 50 years is done for a reason. Star trek fans pride themselves on being smarter than your average fan. It is very obvious why this is here as part of his character arc to be the kirk we know.

312. Dave H - March 8, 2013

@310 As long as he is having group sex with aliens, count me in!
— Johnny

(just kidding)

313. CoffeeProf - March 8, 2013

Wow…let’s judge an entire movie by a translated description of scenes that we ourselves haven’t seen yet!

314. The Last Vulcan - March 8, 2013

Hey if it helps, it seems by the IGN video spoilers that only one of them is a cat woman, the other has scales. So if three way three race sex is your thing, you’re gonna love it. :)

Besides… when was the last time a blockbuster movie didn’t have a sex scene in it in this century? It’s obligatory as it’s what the horny teen boys who buy tickets want to see. This is the new Trek. Live with it.

315. Killamarshtrek - March 8, 2013

For a minute there it looked like a bunch of seemingly ‘intelligent’ people were all arguing about a scene non of you has actually seen yet!

That can’t be right can it?!

316. The Last Vulcan - March 8, 2013

Oh and BTW:

I WOULD LIKE TO FORWARD MY MOST SINCERE APOLOGIES TO boborci FOR THE INSULTS BEING THROWN YOUR WAY BY THE PATHETIC LOSER WANKERS ON THIS SITE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THEY CAN EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS WITHOUT RESORTING TO OFFENSIVE VITUPERATION. PLEASE boborci FORGIVE THEM AS THEY ARE MORONS AND MANY OF THE UPSTANDING FREQUENTERS ON THIS SITE ARE ASHAMED BY THE JUVENILE SOPHOMORIC IDIOTIC BEHAVIOR OF THIS CRETIN MINORITY.

Thank you.

317. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

AGAIN: there is nothing wrong with sex (in itself)

but there is, when it is stupidly gratuitous…

(as it sounds like it is…)

318. BatlethInTheGroin - March 8, 2013

#316: “INSULTS BEING THROWN YOUR WAY BY THE PATHETIC LOSER WANKERS ON THIS SITE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THEY CAN EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS WITHOUT RESORTING TO OFFENSIVE VITUPERATION”

Oh, the delicious irony.

319. BatlethInTheGroin - March 8, 2013

#211: Oh, cry me a river. You know damn well you will NOT skip the film. Every single person on this board who makes that claim just looks like an idiot, since the rest of us all know it’s meaningless bluster.

320. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

i’ll wait for netflix, probly… ;-)

321. Crone - March 8, 2013

@72. Way way up the thread : you’re welcome!

322. Keachick - March 8, 2013

MJ – “Sure, but I don’t need to see in the movie. Just like I don’t need a scene of Scotty on the crapper, or Uhura stowing away a box of tampons in her quarters.
Don’t want to see it and don’t need to see it. I’ve got plenty of non-star trek stuff I can watch anytime that has threesome jokes, toilet humor, etc.
Don’t need my Star Trek to have this.”

First of all, MJ, it is NOT just your Star Trek.

Interesting how you equate scenes showing sexual affection between individuals with someone defecating or with a menstruating woman. Very sad indeed. I find these comments both facetious and a little disturbing as well.

Perhaps, no movie, esp. Star Trek, should show anyone eating or drinking either, because they are also normal bodily activities engaged in by humans and many other species, even on earth.

What necessarily makes pitched battle scenes between vessels in outer space better, more edifying, more fun, more moral, more OK than seeing a young James Kirk shown intimately engaged with a pair of catwomen? I will answer that myself – NOTHING. In terms of stark morality though, at least, Kirk and the two females are not maiming and killing others in the process.

trekkiegal – I think there is a little misunderstanding occurring here. I do understand what you mean. TOS Kirk was often deceived/tricked by women, eg affected by the tears of Elaan and he acted accordingly.

I was commenting on the post #8. Kirk seemed to be getting an OK for using his sexuality in a deceitful manner, ie a ruse, for a *greater* purpose, but not the same OK when it came to what appears to be Kirk engaging in consensual sex between himself and two other individuals. If Kirk is going to get a pass for one type of sexual activity which may involve deceit, then there is no reason why he should not get the same pass for engaging in sexual activity which, quite likely, involves no deceit of any kind.

323. boborci - March 8, 2013

316 Last Vulcan

ok, since u asked so nicely;)

324. Jonboc - March 8, 2013

308-” I am complaining about a single scene — CAN YOU READ THIS — I am complaining about a single scene.”

A single scene that you have not seen. That’s what gets me about a lot of this latest much ado about nothing. So steadfast…so judgmental…and none of you have even SEEN it yet. I may HATE it…but I do know I have to see it first to decide!

325. Gilberto - March 8, 2013

I misspell Pascale’s name, but he misspells São Paulo. We’re even, even though I’m from Rio de Janeiro. Hugs and kisses to all trekkers in the world from trekkers in Brazil.

326. Keachick - March 8, 2013

#285
“We are SPIRITUAL BEINGS having a PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE.
Sex is an animalistic element of that (human) experience… ;-)”

I believe that animals also have spirits/souls. Sex is part of our overall spiritual nature. I do not think that they can be so easily separated or compartmentalized. Also, it can be difficult to discern the actual nature of a consensual sexual act between people, who may or may not be friends or where a friendship may develop… Therefore, it is not right to judge the actions of a young James Kirk with those two female in such a derogatory and unkind manner.

To the writers/producers – I implore you NOT to delete/censor the sex scenes between the catwomen and Kirk. Indeed I would ask that you perhaps make additions to the scenes that give viewers an insight into who these characters are and hopefully show the respect and affection that may be part of Kirk’s own personal story. Thank you!

327. Gilberto - March 8, 2013

By the way, Burk is a nerd with a heart of gold!! My friends who met him just loved how humble and accessible he was. Not your average Hollywood producer of blockbusters.

328. Craiger - March 8, 2013

Are we sure its Pike that wants to demote Kirk for violating the prime directive? What if its Harrison that is doing the manipulating? What if Harrison wants Kirk out of the way for his plan to work?

329. MJ - March 8, 2013

I love the people who keep saying that I or others will not see the film over this. Who is saying that? Stop making this up, people.

DOES ANYBODY ACTUALLY READ POSTS ANYMORE BEFORE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS?

“Interesting how you equate scenes showing sexual affection between individuals with someone defecating or with a menstruating woman. Very sad indeed. I find these comments both facetious and a little disturbing as well.”

I was talking about a Star Trek movie not being where I would want to bathroom humor or references to personal hygiene, just like I would not want group sex to be dealt with in a scene. In other movies, like raunchy comedies, these can be applicable and fit in the context of the flim. Group sex, bathroom humor and personal hygenie stuff should not be a movie — stop trying to make my response here more than this.

However, if you think it is helpful here to score points to call me “disturbing”, and to make sure you use bigger more serious words here to try to embarrass me — “defecating” and “menstruating woman” — then have it, because we all all use to your over-the-top incendiary and argumentative discussion techniques here by now.

330. MJ - March 8, 2013

last para correction: “then have it, because we all know how you use over-the-top incendiary and argumentative discussion techniques here by now.

331. Jack - March 8, 2013

326. Keachick, I’d be surprised if the scene was there to show a respectful, loving, adult relationship(s). I’m thinking more of Flight/Shame/every movie with a threesome. Promiscuity in movies (and sometimes in life) often signals that the character’s on the wrong track. and since this is after his ______. I’m guessing Kirk’s looking for, er, something in all the wrong, furry, places.

332. RAMA - March 8, 2013

This thread continues to be one of great amusement: Someone compared sex to bodily functions like using the toilet, or tampon. Someone else compared sex to an animalistic act. Sexual revolution, what sexual revolution? I feel terrible for these people and the homes they grew up in that taught them sex was always dirty and something to be hidden and shunned. What happened to women being empowered by their sexual nature, so they simply aren’t targets of male desire so they didn’t have to feel dirty from a natural human activity as a sexual species (and dirty because one mother carried it over to their daughter and so on). Of all the things to talk about in this movie, and THIS one is the issue? In a scene that probably doesn’t last longer than for me to type this?

333. MJ - March 8, 2013

@326 “Therefore, it is not right to judge the actions of a young James Kirk with those two female in such a derogatory and unkind manner.”

Jesus H Christ, you are talking about him like he is REAL? I am talking about a poor choice perhaps (Jonboc is correct — we won’t know for sure until we see the entire film) by JJ and the writers of including a scene in a FICTIONAL MOVIE that does not fit well with the overall context and story of this ongoing FICTIONAL saga.

334. RAMA - March 8, 2013

331. Kirk’s character is supposed to show growth with this incarnation, moving from boy, to wild young adulthood, to cocky officer, to what I am sure will be something like the Kirk we remember from the 5 year mission, which hasn’t happened yet btw in this history. Are you telling me 20-30 year olds don’t engage in non-relationship sex? DO you think modern SAILORS practice perfect monogamy? Now where this appears to be going, is that Kirk notices Carol Marcus, and that relationship may be a more longer lasting one, that Kirk eventually gives up for Starfleet.

335. MJ - March 8, 2013

@332 I never compared sex to any such thing, and you know it.

I did however, compare showing shock value group sex in the context of a Star Trek movie to having bathroom humor or dealing with personal hygene to illustrate how these things just don’t fit. Save them for Hangover Part 4 or Bridesmaids 2 — they work and can be very funny in the context of movies where it makes sense to feature them.

336. Phil - March 8, 2013

Picard and Q in bed…no complaining. Kirk and the green women in bed, no complaining. Kirk and kitties, everyone has their undies in a know. A scene no one here has acutally seen yet and was quite possibley seen out of context, has become group sex, which is nonsense. If this is your typical PG-13 movie, everyone will be under the sheets, in their underware, or in such a poorly lit room you’d have to stare really hard to see what was going on.

Besides, Kirk always struck me as someone who needed the lights up full, so his partner(s) could revel in his awesomeness….

337. Jack - March 8, 2013

I really doubt there’s any nudity in the scene (although Keachick alone might triple the box office for Oceana if you show Chris Pine’s bare bum, and I mean that as a compliment, Keachick).

The lost but well-meaning, likeable, charming, scoundrelly hero who deep down doesn’t believe in himself often is shown with a one night stand. Green Lantern was nearly G-rated (sort of) and showed rakish Hal Jordan waking up with a pretty girl. Man, I’m using words I don’t really understand.

Hey Bob, was this intended to be leaked? I guess once you show anything it’ll be leaked, but still? We’re the attendees supposed to keep the specifics on the QT?

338. Phil - March 8, 2013

knot, that is…

339. Phil - March 8, 2013

Hey, the mans exploring strange new worlds…literally..

Show me a guy anywhere who isn’t up for a little pu$$y. Now if Kirk and Spock get together, then who’s the butt of the joke??

Again, I’m sorry. Lighten up, folks.

340. Jack - March 8, 2013

I see where you’re coming from MJ. Were you troubled by the nooky scene in Trek ’09? Is it because there’s two girls? The guy could be passed put in his uniform reeking of booze with the two girls telling him that he didn’t quite make it to warp the night before. Remember, these are the guys who gave us giant hands.

In trek 09, Kirk was being an immature dick, and the movie wasn’t pretending he wasn’t.

341. MJ - March 8, 2013

“DO you think modern SAILORS practice perfect monogamy?”

Great example. Perhaps then they should have added some threesome scenes to Zero Dark Thirty then for the Navy Seal characters, right…you know, to show their development.

Top Gun — could use an orgy scene, pehaps?

Black Hawk Down — how about a threesome thrown in?

Mutiny on the Bounty — perhaps a gay love scene with three men?

You see where I am going with this — those movies don’t need those scenes, as it doesn’t fit them.

(light goes on!) Ah!!!

342. Johnny - March 8, 2013

Again, how is this all that different from the Original Series Kirk? Remember how many women he either flirted or slept with?

How is this any different? I like Mr. Plinkett’s explanatioin of J.J.’s Star Trek films — he’s taken elements from the originals and ELECTRIFIED them. While at the same time, staying true to the heart of what Star Trek is.

Sure, this cat woman threesome may be on the extreme end of things — but it’s still relatively true to Kirk. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that Prime Kirk would have done this — ESPECIALLY before we met him in the Original Series. Remember, these films take place before he’s matured into the Captain we all know and love.

To complain about one scene that will very likely be incredibly brief — without having seen said scene, is incredibly foolish. Just curious — how many of you guys have a problem with Kirk and Gaila in ST09?

343. Craiger - March 8, 2013

I read that their is a pilot under development that will focus on the young crewmen on board an aircraft carrier. Think TNG Lower Decks but on a carrier.

344. Jack - March 8, 2013

341.”You see where I am going with this — those movies don’t need those scenes, as it doesn’t fit them.”

If I was a 14-year-old boy, I would heartily disagree.

Who am I kidding? I still watch movies I wouldn’t normally see if I hear they have nudity.

345. Jack - March 8, 2013

RAMA – yep.

346. MJ - March 8, 2013

@340. Yea Jack, the multiple partners deal just distracts from “Star Trek” and I believe is just Orci and company taking the “bad Kirk” thing too far. They blew this one (pun perhaps intended).

Seriously, can you imagine the uproar here if Carol Marcus or Uhura had a scene where she is getting out of bad with two guys? Then, the only person clapping here would be Keachick, as 95% of the rest of you groaned along with me.

347. Jack - March 8, 2013

Maybe we’re just showing our age?

348. boborci - March 8, 2013

337 Jack

no intention to leak but leaking assumed.

349. Dave H - March 8, 2013

MJ: “Seriously, can you imagine the uproar here if Carol Marcus or Uhura had a scene where she is getting out of bed with two guys?”

Outstanding point! These same people here who are saying how sexually mature they all are would be up in arms over this.

Anyone who doesn’t think that JJ and Bob Orci are treating women as objects with this Kirk feline scene should consider this point here before commenting further.

350. Crewman Darnell - March 8, 2013

Maybe all of the ruckus is due to a big, fat red herring. I mean has it been established that the bed scene directly implies that nuKirk has had sex with the cat women? I’m actually picturing something more along the lines of the sophomoric bedroom antics depicted in ST09.

351. Craiger - March 8, 2013

Aren’t we all forgetting Seven and T’Pol their catsuits and sexy scenes in Voyager and Enterprise?

352. K-7 - March 8, 2013

Ouch, MJ.

Yep, an inferred scene that Uhura was just “gang-banged” by two guys I think would single handily derail the box office for this movie.

That is how much of a double-standard we have here.

They may not admit it, but I would wager that Johnny, RAMA, Jack, etc. etc, would be complaining here in droves about that scene, saying that it did not fit in this movie.

353. kevan - March 8, 2013

The comments on this thread, some, are terribly disappointing.

354. Ahmed - March 8, 2013

350. Crewman Darnell – March 8, 2013

“Maybe all of the ruckus is due to a big, fat red herring. I mean has it been established that the bed scene directly implies that nuKirk has had sex with the cat women?”

Yes, Total Film reported that as well:
——————————–
7 …and Kirk hasn’t developed any form of self-doubt in the time he’s had command of the Enterprise.

8 So much so that we see him in bed with two women. At the same time. And they have tails.

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/03/08/star-trek-into-darkness-20-things-we-learned-from-the-newly-screened-footage/
——————————

Other British sites reported that story too.

355. mhansen0207 - March 8, 2013

Interesting question about what if it was Carol or Uhura…..

But seriously, I think if that were the way the scene played out, I’d actually have the same reaction. I’d think it was a one minute scene that probably didn’t hurt the film. Hell, I’d probably give it praise for some different point of view perspective taking on the part of the writers.

I would hope that others would feel the same way, unlikely as that would be.

356. Jack - March 8, 2013

348. Fair enough.

So is the whole thing spoiled, or is there still a surprise or two in the waiting?

357. MJ - March 8, 2013

“The comments on this thread, some, are terribly disappointing.”

Come on dude, spare me the drama queen routine.

So big deal, some of us differ on an opinion on one scene in the move. So fracking what?

We are getting some cool advance new info now and we are having a good, interesting time discussing it, and some of it happens to be controversial.

Lighten up — you cat didn’t die here, my friend (nor did it sleep with Captain Kirk)

:-)

358. Jack - March 8, 2013

352. If the scene’s a “gang bang” with no connection to the story, fine, I promise I’ll be offended.

359. MJ - March 8, 2013

@355 “I would hope that others would feel the same way, unlikely as that would be.”

But come on, Matt, you know how it would really play out. It would be a PR disaster, and would become a huge joke.

Yea, that would be unfortunate, I agree.

360. Ahmed - March 8, 2013

@ 356. Jack – March 8, 2013

“So is the whole thing spoiled, or is there still a surprise or two in the waiting?”

The problem now that Paramount will release the movie in UK & other countries a whole bloody week before they release it in North America. Unless I enforce on myself a total news blackout during that week, the movie will be surely spoiled for me & others :(

361. Phil - March 8, 2013

Uhura walks into a bar in the last movie with a half dozen of Starfleet’s bruisers in tow. Must have been the book club meeting in the back.

Yeah, that’s it….

362. Gary S - March 8, 2013

I hope JJ doesnt consider cutting this scene from the film for a minute,
I want to see the scene in context and I hope that I get a chance to.

363. Jack - March 8, 2013

360. People seemed to respect the secrecy of movies like The Avengers and Skyfall when they were released first in Europe. Although, I wasn’t checking out Bond/Marvel sites. Reviewers should avoid spoilers, the danger is sites like this…

Discuss.

364. Phil - March 8, 2013

Mr. Orci is lurking tonight. A couple of questions…

Bob, Paramount announced this week they will be producing TV again, and I guess BHC is their first offering. Does Bad Robots first look contract extend to TV, and do you foresee yourself involved in any future TV productions through this affiliation?

Also, these foreign previews seem to have flown under the radar the last couple of days. I know you won’t answer if more are planned, but perhaps you could comment on if Paramount is putting more effort into foreign promotion?

There – general Trek questions. Not that hard, really…

365. RAMA - March 8, 2013

K-7……….gang-banged has nothing to do with a threesome which in this case, sounds like it’s just Kirk in a bed with two females. As I said earlier, I don’t have a problem with a man or women in consensual sex with 2 people of the opposite sex. In fact I asked of those posters who said that 2 women and one man was disrespectful of women if that was the case if there were two men involved instead.

366. Nx01 - March 8, 2013

Has any one else noticed that Kirk has Captain’s stripes in all of the photos. That would seem to negate a demotion back to ex o.

367. mhansen0207 - March 8, 2013

#359

Perhaps it would be a PR disaster, but I’d still hold it up. I don’t believe in this double standard we have. And a scene like that would be doing what Star Trek originally was designed to do: push the boundaries of what society considers “moral.” As it is, I am not personally offended. I find it puzzling why people are, but rather than get nasty about it again, I just choose to remain content with my opinion

I think it’s interesting to note that had Star Trek been a bigger hit in the 60s, I could imagine what you just said would result from an Uhura scene like this would have easily resulted with “Plato’s Stepchildren” and the interracial kiss.

368. Ahmed - March 8, 2013

363.Jack, I think it would be wise, at least to me, to avoid coming to trekmovie. Chances are someone will not hold stuff back & might expose major spoiler or even tell the whole story in a post here !!

369. RAMA - March 8, 2013

Let me re-phrase that:

K-7……….gang-banged has nothing to do with a threesome which in this case, sounds like it’s just Kirk in a bed with two females. As I said earlier, I don’t have a problem with a man or women in consensual sex with 2 people of the opposite sex. In fact I asked of those posters who said that 2 women and one man was disrespectful of women if the same could be said of the two men if the threesome involved a women and two men.

370. mhansen0207 - March 8, 2013

#366

Not necessarily. Captain Spock was still XO to Captain Kirk aboard the Enterprise-A.

Plus, isn’t Pike an Admiral? Couldn’t he have a Captain as an XO? He’d still be subordinate.

371. K-7 - March 8, 2013

#358 #365.

So do you both think that including a scene in a future Trek movie with Uhura with two guys in bed (assuming it fit the story) is a good idea then for a Star Trek movie?

And, in general, would you like to see more multi-partner inferred sex scenes with Trek crew members in future Trek movies, provided the scenes fit with the story?

372. mhansen0207 - March 8, 2013

#371

I personally think that Star Trek has on several occasions challenged gender and sexual norms. We can look at a multitude of examples, the interracial kiss, hell, even in the Motion Picture, we had the introduction of the Deltans. We never really got to explore them, but Roddenberry created them with the intention that the species was extremely sexually-oriented, so much so that Deltan Starfleet officers had to take a frickin oath of celibacy before they were allowed to serve.

I think what many people are bumping up against is the fact that it’s never been explicitly portrayed, with the exception in my opinion of Enterprise.

While it may not be the best move financially, I would applaud an Uhura scene because it would represent the next step in this evolution of the portrayal of sexual roles in Star Trek. As it is with Kirk, I see it that way as well. I think it may be a bit more impactful with Uhura.

373. RAMA - March 8, 2013

Uhura having a threesome wouldn’t make sense unless it was with Spock at this point, but I don’t really have a problem with it. As I said, in terms of Star Trek, they are likely to keep it to less than an R rating. In terms of Kirk, the scene satisfies the character building in terms of him still being relatively “wild” and as a dual purpose, pokes fun of Kirk’s pre JJ reputation.

374. Curious Cadet - March 8, 2013

280. Sebastian S.,
“But I like the idea of the first five year mission having not happened yet (even if it sort of negates the IDW comics so far….).”

How does it negate the comics? Kirk was sent on a few specific assignments to test him. The 5-year mission thing sounds like he’s sent off on his own, setting his own agenda and making it up as he goes. Not only is Kirk not ready for that, but there hasn’t really been time. The comics still hold up …

375. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 8, 2013

I’m sure there are a lot of things we still don’t know, for example we currently have no idea how the scenes supposedly set on Qo’noS fit into these other spoilers. We have no idea who lives and who dies (hopefully none of the main characters, but possibly Pike does). ‘Love is challenged’ – does it survive? ‘Friendships torn apart’ – is it permanent? What dynamic do we have by the end of the movie? Will there be a ‘cliffhanger’ – good grief, I hope not! We really have the first part of the movie only. We still don’t know if Harrison is just that, and we have no idea of his motivations.

I do feel for those who have to wait a week (or more) to see the movie. I doubt the general public will care too much – I presume they aren’t on the internet sifting for Star Trek info in the first place. They’ll be relying on reviews and word of mouth. Regarding the Trekkies/Trekkers amongst us, I can only speak for myself – if somebody put the script up before the movie came out, I would read it. Then I would STILL see the movie at least once. If I ‘hated’ the movie, it would only be once. If I liked it, I’d see it several times, and each time I would pick up some aspect I’d missed the previous time I’d seen it, then I’d buy the DVD, then the ‘extended/special edition’ DVD (if such is offered), and I’d read the novelization. …but I’m obsessive that way…

376. Jack - March 8, 2013

Good advice. My fear isn’t really just sites like this — but news sites anywhere, which pick up stories from here. I’ll have to live in a cave for that week — or move to Europe.

377. mhansen0207 - March 8, 2013

I hear you there. When the movie is first released anywhere, I’m going on a total media blackout.

378. Johnny - March 8, 2013

@MJ: “You see where I am going with this — those movies don’t need those scenes, as it doesn’t fit them.”

But it DOES fit Star Trek. It’s about the evolution of James T. Kirk. I’m sure he won’t comment on this, but I’m sure that’s exactly where Bob Orci and co. are going with it. What WOULD be inappropriate and awkward, is if in say… the sequel to Star Trek into Darkness, Kirk cheats on Carol Marcus with an alien girl. We don’t want to see that. And we won’t.

@boborci — Just curious… why do you have press events like this if you know info is going to leak out? Or is that your plan all along…?

379. boborci - March 8, 2013

Phil Can’t comment on bad Robot tv plans.

KO is currently in a tv deal at 20th and we’re shooting a pilot called “Sleepy Hollow” for Fox Network.

who knows what next year will bring.

380. RAMA - March 8, 2013

373. STNG’s Justice features the Edo…a race Gene Roddenberry took very seriously, this is basically how he pictured an evolved society that didn’t have the sexual hang ups we have in the then 20th century. Also check out some speculations about ST, Gene R. and sex here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Trek:_The_Lost_Years

381. boborci - March 8, 2013

378. to get international press excited. no one HAS to read spoilers.

382. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

…it’s been pointed out that (nu)Kirk is a dick in the JJ-verse. (so far…)

…so, in THAT context, i guess it works…

I just hope that they do a much better job than last time, with the green girl. That makeup sucked. Now, if they could replicate the green girls from ‘Enterprise’, THEY WERE HOT… =P

yeah, yeah, i know, Orion whatever…

383. Craiger - March 8, 2013

Bob have you scene this artist’s concept art for a Trek animated series set in the new universe?

http://www.trekzone.de/content/dt/news/2013-03-06-1-concept-fan-art-fuer-animierte-star-trek-serie.htm

384. Phil - March 8, 2013

@381. There has been a lot written in recent years that of the total box office it’s preferred that 2/3 of revenue is foreign, and the other third domestic. Is that the standerd STID is aiming for, assuming that there is going to be more focus on foreign promotion?

385. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

…now, the “captains and first officers meeting”…?

COME ON, Bob… WTF???

i suppose the whole fleet is parked around earth, too?

386. boborci - March 8, 2013

383. yeah, very cool.

384. no, we’d prefer domestic be bigger but rest of the world important.

387. Johnny - March 8, 2013

@boborci — 381

So it’s a calculated risk.

My worry is… that spoilers spread like crazy these days. It’s easy to get spoiled even if you’re not intending to read the articles. For example, I’ve recently got spoiled BIG TIME for a TV show — by just a *headline* in the “related links” section of a film website.

It’s just so refreshing that in 2013, we all know so little about a film that’s coming out in about nine weeks. As we get closer to release, I don’t want to start seeing headlines that spoil the film.

Note. I’m not necessarily complaining about websites posting spoilers — I’m just lamenting the fact that so many people seem to WANT spoilers. Why? Doesn’t it take the FUN out of seeing a film for the first time?

388. Buzz Cagney - March 8, 2013

#277 yea sorry, someone had to step up to the plate and do it. Everybody was thinking it!

389. Jack - March 8, 2013

381. …unless somebody posts detailed descriptions of them, hot off the presses, in the middle of a thread about William Shatner hosting the Oscars with the word Spoiler at the front of the sentence, that you don’t see because you’re skimming through comments and keep reading before you realize they’re actually talking about the movie, and then they tell you, ‘well, I said spoiler!’

I’m almost ready to move on, really.

390. K-7 - March 8, 2013

…still waiting for Jack and RAMA to answer these two questions:

So do you both think that including a scene in a future Trek movie with Uhura with two guys in bed (assuming it fit the story) is a good idea then for a Star Trek movie?

And, in general, would you like to see more multi-partner inferred sex scenes with Trek crew members in future Trek movies, provided the scenes fit with the story?

391. boborci - March 8, 2013

Jack

well, so many of u appear totally skilled at avoiding reading anything of relevance and importance regarding the reality of the world we live in, I’m sure most can handle avoiding spoilers;)

392. boborci - March 8, 2013

390 you mean mutli patrner “implied.”

and that mistake was smartest part of your question.

393. Jack - March 8, 2013

Just ’cause I don’t tweet about Chavez doesn’t mean I don’t read. I read horrible news all day — I come here to turn off and talk about crap that doesn’t really matter.

394. MJ - March 8, 2013

@392. This from the guy who wrote a scene about Kirk sleeping with two cats! :-)

Good to have to you back, Bob.

Has JJ invited any of you into his Star Wars adventure yet?

395. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

…under boborci, the Federation is a bunch of chumps, apparently… =(

…no wonder they’ve got an immature dick like (nu)Kirk piloting a Starship…

…i hope they DO CRASH THE SHIP at the end…

…and next time: new director, new writer, new designer. please!!!
everything else is fine: cast, wardrobe, effects production, sound, music…

396. MJ - March 8, 2013

Bob, it looks like the CIA’s cancer virus worked on Chavez.

397. DiscoSpock - March 8, 2013

Speaking of news, 40% of Austrians in a poll release today said “Hitler was not all that bad.” Yet they are getting STID a week ahead of the USA.

398. boborci - March 8, 2013

395. ha! and I’m gonna hold my breath until u say sorry and I hope your chair breaks and u fall over and scrape your elbow. boohoohoo!

399. Lurker - March 8, 2013

From Susan Sackett’s “Inside Trek”

“I had insisted on half women on board [the Enterprise]. The network came to me and said, ‘You can’t have half women. Our people say it will make it look like a ship with all sorts of mad sexual things going on — half men and half women.’ So we argued about it like a poker game and they finally said, ‘Okay. We’ll settle for one-third women.’ I figured one-third women could take care of the males anyway.”

–from personal conversations with Gene Roddenberry in 1990, at La Costa, Calif.

Sounds like Gene would have been fine with the multi-partner thing.

400. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

dude, you are GREAT at what you do =)

but Star Trek ain’t it… (IMHO)

401. Jack - March 8, 2013

Sorry, a little defensive. But don’t assume shit about us based on wasting time here, as you do, or not leaping to the conclusion that you could be producing incredible documentaries, or writing about real issues ibstrad of tweeting instead of sitting by your pool paid for by writing escapist crap for us poor, ignorant schmucks and ribbing Trek fans who disagree that not testing for explosives in the rubble of 911 must mean inside job and nothing else.

Christ, I’m touchy. Obviously I’m feeling guilty about spending time here and writing crap consumer stories when I’d rather be writing about things that affect people’s lives.

402. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

I have really liked some of your movies…

Zoro comes to mind…

403. Phil - March 8, 2013

Hey, IANH, we get it, based on something you have not seen, you’ve concluded the next installment is garbage.

And only because I’m in a bad mood, in order to pull off virtually all the $hit in movies 1-10, that Federation had to have been a bunch of chumps, too.
Plenty of immature dicks in the old universe, too. Space hippies, anyone?
Old Kirk crashed the ship, Old Picard crashed the ship, and so did old Deanna. …oh, and WE DON’T ACTUALLY KNOW THAT THE NEW ENTERPRISE CRASHES YET.

I don’t have an issue with the current production staff, but I could sure enjoy life a bit more with a few less pain in the @$$ fans…

And only because it would seem to irritate you, if we do get a new Enterprise, I do hope it’s a bigger, more bad ass version of what he have right now…..

Chirst, its a PG-13 movie. Who know so many people would be in an uproar that Kirk is exploring new life with non-humans. There’s no f**king orgy going on in this flick, so stop with the BS’ing – your’re going on like you just found out your wife did a photoshoot for Hustler without telling you….

404. Jack - March 8, 2013

Wow, whether he’s fake or real, Bob has the power to piss me off. Embarrassing.

405. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 8, 2013

@393. Jack
… I’m a little more worried about the developing Korean situation myself… A deeply paranoid regime that looks like it now has both nuclear capability and the means to deliver it, and that has just announced it was voiding its non-aggression pact with South Korea as well as threatening the US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, does not inspire me with confidence for the future. I’m also quite uncomfortable with the likelihood that China is the only voice of reason North Korea just might listen to. But yes, I agree with your sentiment that we come to Star Trek to escape the real world – just as we were doing in the 60s to escape the Cold War, Vietnam, etc.

406. Curious Cadet - March 8, 2013

@403 Phil,
“WE DON’T ACTUALLY KNOW THAT THE NEW ENTERPRISE CRASHES YET.”

Um, yeah I think we do. The British over at IGN confirmed the Enterprise is the ship we see crashing into the SF Bay in the trailers.

407. Craiger - March 8, 2013

I was reading up on the Prime Directive and that has conflicts because isn’t the Captain’s duty to protect his ship and crew? I think Kirk even says that once. However the Prime Directive also says you have to sacrifice the ship and crew so its technology doesn’t fall into a less developed cultures hands?

408. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

it’s FEAR-MONGERING…

STID is doing a bit of that too…

409. boborci - March 8, 2013

jack

don’t sweat it. u seem reasonable enough. no hard feelings here.

410. Phil - March 8, 2013

@406. Then they need to explain how that sillouete does not look like Enterprise….we’ve all seen it, and figured it’s not Enterprise…

411. Buzz Cagney - March 8, 2013

Its funny how one man’s spoilers are another mans worst suspicions confirmed.
My thoughts have now sunk so low about Into Dorkness i’m pretty much guaranteed to find it better than I fear!

412. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 8, 2013

@406. Curious Cadet

I’m still not convinced. That could have been their interpreation from the way the scenes were cut. We’ll know for sure when we see the movie.

413. Phil - March 8, 2013

@405. North Korea is nothing to worry about. They are broke, barely nuclear, and the only way they consistantly get missles somewhere it to pay someone to ship them. They scream nd yell everycouple of years like a little child, someone gives them a bit of attention, and the shut up for a while. I’d be more concerned about India and Pakastan dropping bombs on each other first.

414. Jack - March 8, 2013

I kind of wonder if they’re trying to invite an invasion. It seems unlikely, because with it would come a total loss of power. But that economy has been failing for decades, and even a “going down in a blaze of glory” assault would be far more disastrous to the North Korean people than to anyone outside of NK. In the past. both China and South Korea have worried about the economic ramifications of NK collapsing. There’s no profit to be made there, despite insane human rights abuses — it ain’t the Middle East.

It’s hard to tell what’s going on there at the best of times, whether this is meant as a feel-good message solely to citizens in ever worsening conditions, who can unite in their continued belief that they’re the best nation on the planet. Also hard to tell whether or not NK believes this will be taken seriously by anyone else.

I lived in Seoul for a few years and went on the bizarre USO tour to the DMZ, where American tourists were snapping pics of emaciated North Korean soldiers outside the windows of a trailer set right on the N/S DMZ border.

415. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

Phil is right. look at history. just sabre rattling.

They know we would smoke then in an instant (if we were allowed to)

Don’t worry. The Galactics will not allow nuclear weapons to operate.

416. Gene L. Coon was a U.S. Marine. Stand at ease. - March 8, 2013

I love it when boborci throws the zingers! Inferred/implied has tripped up many a man. Even multiple men.

417. boborci - March 8, 2013

wonder why all the rattling? i mean, it’s not like we’ve started a half dozen undeclared pre-emptive wars across the world against countries that haven’t attacked us (just in this century). I mean, what are they thinking?

418. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

War is the only “industry” in North Korea…

plus, they have to look tough to their own citizens…

plus, we HAVE SANCTIONED THEM, even withholding food aide, IIRC…

419. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

oh, i see what you are saying… ;-)

420. I am not Herbert - March 8, 2013

420… that’s my cue…

later dudes…

421. Jack - March 8, 2013

Yeah, but — this ain’t new. Huge numbers of American troops have been stationed at the border (which is 45 minutes from Seoul) for decades — and there’s never been a hint of the U.S. taking the bait (because there’s no oil there, no real strategic advantage, a huge humanitarian mess to deal with and, well, you don’t mess with China next door).

I get your point — they’re worried America will invade, and don’t like ‘em there, in any case, and occasionally, regularly, puff up their chests. And the threat of the enemy and boldly standing up against him helps for morale when your people live in abject poverty and are under constant control. But it seems odd with KJU actually threatening not just war, as always, but a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Sure, it’s good internal PR and the people believe it’s (the nuclear threat to Korea) the case, all they know is propaganda (and they believe it, just like we do our own) — but I wonder about some of these party officials who have interacted with the rest of the world. I just wonder whether something else might be going on here, internally, beyond just posturing. I have no idea.

422. Ahmed - March 8, 2013

Bob, ever thought of making a movie about the American intervention in Chile that lead to the overthrowing of Allende ?

423. Jack - March 8, 2013

Is it just about sanctions? Maybe. But messing around with nukes = more sanctions. China’s agreeing with today’s UN sanctions, for whatever that’s worth in practice.

424. Jack - March 8, 2013

423. That likely wouldn’t involve enough CGI or Elisabeth Banks.

425. The Last Vulcan - March 8, 2013

@323. boborci – My pleasure. Having one of the top hyphenates in the industry frequent this site is an honor and a privilege, and it is appalling how some imbeciles think they’re talking to their stoner kid brother.

On a completely unrelated topic, I have many close relatives in Venezuela and I have seen first hand how his regime has devastated the country. I have walked through tourist and commercial areas that were thriving 20 years ago and are now crumbling ghost towns. Therefore when Mr. Chavez passed, I celebrated vociferously. That having been said, his lethal disease did come on a bit suddenly and at a very critical juncture when it was highly convenient for his opposition including the USA for him to croak. So… do you think that there is the hand of the CIA and/or Mossad (Ahmadinejad was so in love with him that he did say that Hugo would be returning with Christ & Imam Mahdi) in what Maduro has claimed is an Arafat-style radioactivity exposure?

Conspiracy or just weird coincidence?

426. Jack - March 8, 2013

@323. boborci – My pleasure. Having one of the top hyphenates in the industry frequent this site is an honor and a privilege, and it is appalling how some imbeciles think they’re talking to their stoner kid brother.”

Yes, incredibly appaling. What, we should add ‘your worship’ to every line?

427. Jack - March 8, 2013

Appalling.

428. boborci - March 8, 2013

Last Vulcan
Conspiracy or coincidence?

have no evidence of either. open to evidence.

On the one hand, cancer happens.

on the other hand, US. has history of hanky panky in Latin America from coup’s to whacky assassination attempts. certainly nothing historically rules out that US would attempt such a thing.

429. boborci - March 8, 2013

coups

430. Phil - March 8, 2013

@425. The guy was fighting it for close to two years. Consideering where he went for care, it’s amiracle he lasted as long as he did…

431. Jonboc - March 8, 2013

Hey Bob Orci! quick question for you if you’re still hanging ’round. Of course the movie looks great, but my question is concerning the upcoming game. You had a hand in its development, right? Any reason to rip through this game quickly to enhance the viewing of Into Darkness in May? Or, any reason to consider the reverse…should I wait and play the game after I see the movie?

432. boborci - March 8, 2013

JonBoc

you don’t need to have played it to dig STID, but it can’t hhelp but give an extra tingle or two if u have:)

433. K-7 - March 8, 2013

Perhaps they should posthumously give Chavez the Hugo Award this year.

“390 you mean mutli patrner “implied.” and that mistake was smartest part of your question.”

Bob, your dirty ole man, you. Well played.

For those of you not getting this: infer = IN FUR, as in Kirk copulating with a furry cat person.

I can’t believe I just typed that. LOL

434. boborci - March 8, 2013

433.k-7

at this late hour while high on NyQuil i will endorse your pun since i love them so, even though I get made fun of for that. all in good fun here.

435. K-7 - March 8, 2013

HA !

Hope you feel better soon!

436. boborci - March 8, 2013

435. k-7

who said I was sick?

I keeeeeed!

thanks, K-7.

437. Phil - March 8, 2013

North Korea is a dictatorship. They rattle the sabers to put on a show at home, to remind the locals that, even though they are eating dirt, while the leadership lives in the lap of luxary, that their ‘true’ enemy is the evil Americans. There is no other reason, because there’s nothing there. Like it or not, somethimes things are as they appear.

438. Lux - March 8, 2013

boborci, ever thought of doing research into allegations that the CIA had a major role in Gough Whitlam’s dismissal? Google it.

439. Keachick - March 8, 2013

Gosh, I really enjoy coming back to this thread to read your blasphemy and calling my comments argumentative and incendiary [sarcasm]. I did not liken scenes of sexual intimacy to taking a crap or menstruating women. You did that and it was stupid and offensive.

Anyway, so what if a viewer did get a quick glimpse of a feminine hygience product in Uhura’s quarters – Lt Uhura is a healthy female of childbearing age – that is part of who she is… In case of the bedroom scene with Kirk and cat ladies, sight of a condom or two on the dresser would not be out of place either… and guess what, neither physical activities have anything to do with crapping and peeing.

Funny how you go over-the-top reminding me that Kirk is a fictional character when I call for kindness when it comes to assessing what little is known about his actions, yet it is OK for people to call the same fictional character a dick, frat boy and every other harsh and often inaccurate term. You don’t go ballistic at them or those silly harsh comments…

Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov, John Harrison, Carol Marcus…are all FICTIONAL characters but it has not stopped people for almost fifty years from discussing, debating, K/S shipping, you name it, the merits or otherwise of these characters and how they have been variously written.

For the record, if, for instance, the same scene had Kirk with a male and female catpeople couple, it would not necessarily disturb me either. It is about the motivations and actions of the people involved that matter. However, that is not what we are told the scenes show – so be it.

440. Jonboc - March 8, 2013

Thanks bob, I won’t rush through the game, it seems pretty expansive…but I’ll hammer through what I can before the movie debuts. And yeah, just muddled through a nasty head/chest cold myself…NyQuil IS your friend! Just put off any forklift driving till you’re over it. :)

441. Keachick - March 8, 2013

Post #439 was in reply to a post by MJ.

442. boborci - March 8, 2013

437 phil.

I think what you say is mostly true. but history has a way of complicating thngs.

443. boborci - March 8, 2013

440. I would kill myself and others if I attempted anything as useful or manly as operating a forklift. thanks!

444. Dee - lvs moon surface - March 8, 2013

Hi Mr. Orci… great to see you here again!

Since it seems that Kirk will get out quick of that bed … I hope it’s long enough for us to see shirtless Kirk! … ;-) :-)

445. Keachick - March 8, 2013

#444 Yes!

Bob Orci, please. Long, lingering filming from all angles of the young Kirk and people here think that the two women are the sex objects…Actually, no one is. However, the desire to see and delight in the fine Pine form should not be understated.

446. Phil - March 8, 2013

@442. The history becomes complicated when someone does something stupid. Unfortunately, we can only know that after the event has occured, so at this point all we can do is hope that calmer heads will prevail.

447. Trek Tech - March 8, 2013

@ 13
No, that is a fan sculpt of the Klingon Helmet based on screen caps from the 09 movie and that mask underneath the helmet is your run of the mill mask you wear when around resin dust, Fiberglass and paint. Mike did a great job with his sculpt but it has no official connection to the movie and was only finished just this week.

448. dmduncan - March 8, 2013

One doesn’t necessarily need to be sick to drink NyQuil. As a bum-wine, it’s pretty choice stuff.

449. Phil - March 8, 2013

@443. That’s funny, but then, I’ve had a glass of wine. If you can drive a car, you can drive a forklift. My son has been behind the wheel of a seven billion dollar submarine, so I think that tops anything we have driven.

450. Lord garth, formerly of izar - March 8, 2013

Orci
Forget some of these repressed prudes if anyone is gonna be bangin away in a threesome it would be James T Kirk in fact I’m sure if you gave Shatner some sodium Pentothal you’d here some real life swingin stories with women to make Bob Guccioni’s toes curl.

But

You better not have killed off Pike, if I don’t see him drooling and beeping away in a hoverchair by the end of the film I’m sending Guy Bannister to pay you a visit

451. AJ - March 8, 2013

I predict that they will pull the Enterprise out of the bay, let it dry, fix it, and we’ll have it looking brand spanking new at the end. The opening proves the ship can survive underwater anyway. As we’ve seen, Kirk and Spock land it in the bay head first, so it probably minimizes stress on the hull, like a swan dive vs. a belly-flop.

452. dmduncan - March 8, 2013

NK is dangerous because it is nuclear and insular, which amplifies the narcissism of its dictators. Narcissism and nukes are not good features for an authoritarian state to have.

At the same time, the American media is selling the dangers of NK as hard as if Edward Bernays was running the anti-NK publicity campaign himself. Dennis Rodman’s unusual visit actually made the new Kim appear more human than the previous one, and I think THAT is what really pissed some folks off in this administration.

Rodman interfered with the media campaign, which seemed to personally tick off political hack infotainment specialist George Stephanopolous.

As bad as that country is, Rodman made Kim seem reachable, which is not a narrative you hear in the media or coming from its puppet-masters in the White House.

453. Trekkiegal63 - March 8, 2013

Went to see the ‘Great and Powerful Oz’ tonight for the hubby and I’s date night and saw the new ST trailer. I really liked the scenes with Pike and Kirk. They were touching.

#322 Keachick:

trekkiegal – I think there is a little misunderstanding occurring here. I do understand what you mean. TOS Kirk was often deceived/tricked by women, eg affected by the tears of Elaan and he acted accordingly.

I was commenting on the post #8. Kirk seemed to be getting an OK for using his sexuality in a deceitful manner, ie a ruse, for a *greater* purpose.

My apologies. I thought you were addressing my point that most of the casual encounters TOS Kirk did have were the result of coercion, thus this reputation he has as a lothario was wildly exaggerated. Which is true.

However, having come to a consensus there, I do have another issue with this concept of sexual freedom that’s crept up here by you and other posters. I think a lot of you are confusing disturbance at the idea of a scene with Kirk in bed with two females as prudishness. It’s not. It’s concern over women being objectified.

The difference between Kirk and those two women? Kirk is an established character. He has been given a personality outside of his sex life. We know he likes fast moving things, and is a brilliant strategist and if taste-buds are genetic, he’ll share a penchant for Saurian brandy with his TOS counterpart. These girls? IF the spoilers are indeed accurate, they exist only for a sixty second scene. They aren’t given depth or nuances beyond ‘hot chicks in Kirk’s bed’. We don’t know how they take their coffee or if they prefer Steinbeck to Poe (or whatever equivalent of classic authors their own world has, I’m speaking metaphorically here).

Yes, sex between two (or three), consenting adults is one thing, but the problem here is Hollywood has a habit of showing women as sexual objects ONLY and less as people with other interests and ambitions.

From seejane.org:

Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males.

And I posted this above but I think it got lost…

Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one’s sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification. Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person’s personality or sentience.

This is why such a scene, IF true, would be bothersome to *me*.

454. Crybaby hater - March 8, 2013

Wtf are all you talking about Kirk disrespecting women? Kirk is porking around with Halle Berry and Michelle Pfifer…two cats in heat… Who wouldn’t!? (Me I wouldn’t because I’d be in bed with any Hemsworth brother but stil…)

1. Just because some humans have religious rooted morals around reproduction doesn’t mean anyone else in galaxy does….

2. It’s an alternate universe so your Kirk you grew up with in a time when blacks were still crapping in seperate bathrooms are over…

3. If JJ Abrams had it my way, Kirk would be in bed with 5 cat men

And if its really that upsetting just don’t see the movie, say a Hail Mary and stop whining because there’s enough nerd ridden hate on here to make Roddenberry roll over in his grave… Embrace change. It’s inevitable… And trek still lives on.

-pearl jam rules!

455. Disinvited - March 8, 2013

403. Phil – March 8, 2013

The film can’t be rated until the complete cut is handed over to the ratings board/panel/whatever organization.

So unless you are breaking some leak of inside information there is no way that you know what the rating is at this juncture.

456. Phil - March 8, 2013

We obviously are not watching the same media. All I’ve seen reported is that the rhetoric is running hot, but it’s nothing we have not seen before. The Rodman visit was treated as something of an odditity, bringing back some memories of the days of ping-pong diplomacy. There seems to be a sense of status quo about this whole thing. Yeah, nukes are a potential game changer, but only if you can deliver them. One could probably make just as pursuvsive an arguement the country is about to collapse as you could any other outcome.

457. Phil - March 8, 2013

@455. PG-13, at worst. Will never ever be rated R. I’d bet my life on that….

458. dmduncan - March 8, 2013

456: “Yeah, nukes are a potential game changer, but only if you can deliver them.”

I hear postage to South Korea for one is pretty cheap on account of it being so close and all.

459. Phil - March 8, 2013

@458. Kinda hard to loot Seoul if it’s been vaporized. Yooung Kim is a lot more interested in booze and hookers then he is in vaporizing anyone.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=541585939219639&set=a.424790097565891.101502.424717587573142&type=1&theater

460. Disinvited - March 8, 2013

#456. Phil – March 8, 2013

Life’s too precious to lay at the capriciousness of Film Ratings Boards and studio marketing departments.

Why not just say you are certain the production is aiming for no worse than a PG-13 and leave it at that?

461. Phil - March 8, 2013

@460. You are not looking to shoot someone, are you? Today is as good a day to die as any other, I suppose… :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWOZotnFhLA&list=AL94UKMTqg-9AOlif77rvs3_JPSEzi4cxh

462. dmduncan - March 8, 2013

@459: Who said it had to be Seoul?

And the threat doesn’t have to be real to start real trouble.

463. Red Dead Ryan - March 8, 2013

#439.

I think you’re distorting what MJ has said about the three-some. He only said that pourn (and it is pourn) has no place in Trek just like menstruating and crapping. “Star Trek” is supposed to be above that frat-boy crap that is so prevalent in today’s comedies and dramas.

Some of us would rather see screen time devoted to fights, action, space battles, humor, and good ole’ Kirk-Spock-McCoy debates with a little bit of Scotty’s miracle working thrown in.

464. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 8, 2013

North Korea has threatened massive retaliation before, but I think this is the first time it’s threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike… Hopefully it’s just sabre rattling, but with a paranoid regime, who knows? I’m also worried that China voting for the sanctions, rather than abstaining, means that China is afraid this might actually get out of hand this time.

465. Phil - March 8, 2013

China needs stability in the region just as much as the Japanese and S. Koreans. It’s all about self preservation – let’s face it, China needs us as much as we need them. It’s bad for business if piss-ant N. Korea creates instability, let alone drop a bomb somewhere…the only way they nuke anyone is if FedEx has Pyongyang on one of it’s routes. This will wind down in a couple of week when China, S. Korea, or the US delivers some aid in exchange for a promise to behave.

466. MJ - March 9, 2013

@463 – Read Dead Ryan (responding to Keachick’s post @439): “I think you’re distorting what MJ has said about the three-some. He only said that pourn (and it is pourn) has no place in Trek just like menstruating and crapping. “Star Trek” is supposed to be above that frat-boy crap that is so prevalent in today’s comedies and dramas.”

Exactly. Keachick is attempting to shift this discussion to make it sound like I am some deviant, using her big clinical words like “menstruating” and “defecation” to discredit my whole point and try to change the discussion to make it about me instead of what is likely a poor scene choice for STID. And now she has added “blasphemy” to her toolkit of bad things to say about me. Let me use a very straightforward simple work in reponse — “crock” — as in what a crock of shtt….or in her words, what a petri dish of defecation. :-)

@453 – Trekiegal63: “…the problem here is Hollywood has a habit of showing women as sexual objects ONLY and less as people with other interests and ambitions…’Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one’s sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification. Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person’s personality or sentience.’ This is why such a scene, IF true, would be bothersome to *me*.”

What an outstanding and thoughtful post! Now there is Gene Rodenberry’s true vision of how the sexes and sexual situations should be treated if they are to be covered in a modern Star Trek movie or series.

467. MJ - March 9, 2013

@454 / Crybabe Hater: “2. It’s an alternate universe so your Kirk you grew up with in a time when blacks were still crapping in seperate bathrooms are over…”

OMG, are you comparing the Kirk with two cat aliens sex scene to DEFECATION? No! No! No! Not DEFECATION.

;-)

468. Dave H - March 9, 2013

“Embrace change. It’s inevitable…-pearl jam rules!”

Ah the irony. Embrace change, but buy the way, my dad and mom’s lame old grunge rock band rules.

LOL

469. MJ - March 9, 2013

“Ah the irony. Embrace change, but by the way, my dad and mom’s lame old grunge rock band rules.”

Outstanding catch, Dave — that pretty much ruins that crybaby guy’s silly rant.
WHOOPS! :-))

470. Red Dead Ryan - March 9, 2013

With all the talk of “crap” and “defecation” on this thread, I’d say the SH!T has hit the FANS!

471. Dave H - March 9, 2013

Shit happens!

472. The Last Vulcan - March 9, 2013

426. Jack – So according to you it should be acceptable to chat with Stephen Hawking and call him Forrest Gimp, talk to Nelson Mandela and tell him he should have been kept in the slammer, or ask Queen Elizabeth II how difficult it was to convince MI5 to get Diana smashed into a French tunnel wall? boborci in his field is the equivalent of those luminaries in theirs and they have earned RESPECT, something that an entire generation of rude and crude savages couldn’t spell if you spotted them six letters.

428. boborci – Of course, cancer knows no boundaries, and most likely Maduro was reaching for effect when he was blaming the American and Israeli secret services for pulling an Arafat on Hugo… it’s just that the position of the cancer could easily have been caused by a radioactive source placed in his office chair. Just sayin’!

473. Dave H - March 9, 2013

#476. If so, then give that CIA agent the Nobel Peace Prize, please.

As for the rest of your post, huh?????

474. The Last Vulcan - March 9, 2013

@473. Dave H – The scientific world has finally found evidence for predestination. Post #473 replies to post #476. It’s a miracle! :P If you’re referring to post #472, all it takes is reading. :)

475. healthy eating - March 9, 2013

An intriguing discussion is worth comment.
There’s no doubt that that you need to write more on this issue, it might not be a taboo matter but typically people don’t speak about these
subjects. To the next! Cheers!!

476. Keachick - March 9, 2013

MJ – It was you who compared sexual intimacy to crapping and *periods (I realize the difficulty you have reading “big clinical” words). Nobody else did that on this thread; only you. *The only reason Uhura would have tampons is because she menstruates. Funny thing, somehow I don’t think it even occurred to the film makers to show tampons, condoms or Scotty taking a piss or a crap. This is all you, MJ and none of these have anything to do with sexual intimacy.

trekkiegal mentions how often women get sexually objectified and this scene with Kirk and the catwomen appears to be no exception. Another poster writes that Star Trek is not about pourn and that they would rather see battles, fights, tactics, fast ships (ie boys with toys). The sad fact is that the demand of big boys to see other big boys play with big, often dangerous toys, means scenes showing relationships that may involve sexual intimacy get squeezed timewise, so generally speaking an audience rarely comes to know anything about, eg Kirk’s lovers in their own right.

Given the demand/delight that so many people, in particular males, have watching bloody battle scenes, fist fights etc I have to wonder if some of these scenes might not be legitimately described as p-rn. Look up the meaning p-rnography… UGH!

477. Disinvited - March 9, 2013

If I recall, NEIGHBORS is an actual DISNEY property, so does this portend of things to come?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2290630/Mark-Hamill-George-Takei-join-forces-Star-Trek-Star-Wars-legends-guest-star-The-Neighbors.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

478. Disinvited - March 9, 2013

#461. Phil – March 8, 2013

Never. Just concerned when sentient beings use oils based on the whimsy of others to paint themselves into honor corners with no clear exits.

479. cpelc - March 9, 2013

I think we need to have an article with a breakdown of all possible clues from the ongoing comic thus far.

It appears that now we know Weller is Admiral Marcus there is a strong possibility that he was the voice “off-panel” speaking to Pike about controlling Kirk.

Anthony is this possible to put together?

480. Curious Cadet - March 9, 2013

@439 Keachick,
“In case of the bedroom scene with Kirk and cat ladies, sight of a condom or two on the dresser would not be out of place either”

I would actually hope that by the 23rd Century, that STDs are a thing of the past, and that both female and male birth control methods are otherwise foolproof. However, this speaks to the next point … Why would you think to include condoms in such a futuristic scene? Obviously, while being a sexually enlightened being yourself, you also recognize the need for responsible conduct. But you are viewing that through the lens of a 20th century upbringing, applying your experiences to what is depicted in the film from your frame of reference. And that is the problem with this scene, which you are ironically overlooking.

“It is about the motivations and actions of the people involved that matter”

trekkiegal has made some impassioned and persuasive points about this scene, but I feel most are missing her point. The scene is NOT about the motivations and actions of the fictional characters in the story as you suggest. It is about how those actions are perceived by the AUDIENCE. It is the audience for whom the film is made. Everything depicted in the film is carefully designed by the writers and directors to titilate and inform the audience in a specific way, either consciously or unconsciously. So while I otherwise agree with you 100%, that consensual sex between individuals should be accepted and embraced without judgement, and indeed in context such a scene suggests that in the future this is so, TODAY that is not how the SCENE will be perceived by a general audience.

This is not about pushing the envelope of accepted sexual mores by an otherwise sexually repressed society. It is about how it will be perceived by the average teenage boy (which lets face it, is the target audience of the Summer blockbuster and Star Trek is no exception). And what will they see? A young guy who leapfrogged older and better qualified people to become Captain of the most badass ship in the fleet, because he breaks the rules, ignores authority and is rewarded by living large like a rapper, who when he’s not out single handedly saving the galaxy is partying hard and hooking up with hot alien babes. One cannot assume the adolescent mind is going to make the connection that apparent casual sex is part of an ongoing mutually respectful relationship between e participants. Indeed, that is not how today’s general society is taught to view such scenes, so most likely it will be interpreted as “bad” and “dirty”. And from that the most obvious conclusion is that it is promiscuous and entirely for Kirk’s pleasure, a reward for being such a stud. How the women in the scene feel about it, will most likely not even occur to a single boy or man. While I have not seen the scene, it sounds like Kirk gets the call and quickly leaves, which will likely be perceived as without regard for the women with whom he’s otherwise “finished”.

This kind of scene is commonplace in Hollywood. I mentioned “Flight” earlier which actually opens with this kind of scene. And I viewed the woman in the scene as disposable, someone Denzel Washinton was just using. Indeed, even Denzel seemed to view her this way until later when he is coming to terms with his reckless behavior, and we find out she was a real person who cared about him, and for whom he probably cared as well. But until that moment she was just so much T&A about which some guys in the audience were probably wondering why they couldn’t have an f-buddy like that …

But as I mentioned to trekkiegal, I respect the right of the filmmaker to use such scenes to make a point. The example from “Flight” makes that point very well. Until I have seen Trek, I obviously cannot judge this choice, but there may certainly be a justification with a modern audience to use such a tool to make a point about Kirk. Trekkiegal is not wrong, that these kinds of scenes are not generally ever justified, but as art imitates life, I would disagree. In the case of Flight, a salient point was made using a scene of casual sex. And with modern filmmaking that is what is important, otherwise it becomes gratuitous eye candy for a general audience, that can only result in negative connotations. Until I see STID, I have to reserve judgement.

481. Curious Cadet - March 9, 2013

@480 ^^^

Oh, and about the condoms …

The need to address a 21st century audience is why you would have condoms in a futuristic scene where STDs are likely non-existent and birth control is foolproof.

It’s the responsible thing to do in representing a scene of sexual liberation — because you KNOW teenage boys are watching your movie, and even though its not realistic for the setting, it broadcasts a message for the audience.

482. AJ - March 9, 2013

Quickie Huffpost UK article on ‘STID’ 28-min showing in the UK. Photo with JJ is one I have not seen before. JJ has not quite ‘jumped ship’ yet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/08/star-trek-into-the-darkness-jj-abrams_n_2837822.html

483. RAMA - March 9, 2013

I find it interesting that once again, the complaints from some are about sexuality, implied sex scenes…when the movie has so much violence. Again, in Europe and overseas, whom the producers appear to be targeting more to increase BO grosses, sexuality is less offensive to them, but in the US its the prudish, religious influence that makes us run in fright from skin or any dirty dirty sexual thoughts. No one remarks about all the death and killing, that’s ok (religions are well practiced in this), but sex is BAD. lol The results of this sexual repression are apparent, especially with the Catholic church and it’s many scandals which forced a Pope to leave (BS about health notwithstanding…the older and more backwards the ideas the better they like it, who are they kidding).

Also to boborci…if you are so worried about real life you are in the wrong business pal.

484. dmduncan - March 9, 2013

So what’s the OBVIOUS benefit to developing some sort of cancer-inducing mechanism as a method of assassination? Anybody want to point it out?

485. dmduncan - March 9, 2013

And by “benefit’ I DO mean to those who would desire assassination.

486. RAMA - March 9, 2013

I’m confused…are you telling us the target audience of STID (teenage boys only? I think not) don’t know that they are not in mature relationships when they sleep around? Um, I think they do…

487. RAMA - March 9, 2013

Oh no, boborci is going to talk about conspiracies again…wake me up when it’s over…(I think this is what he means by “real life”..)

boring

488. Craiger - March 9, 2013

Trek needs to get the SW audience.

489. RAMA - March 9, 2013

489. I’m fine with ST getting a new audience, it has kept a lot of the old audience too but it can’t stay stagnant. Those numbers of trekkies can’t keep a studio in business anymore.

490. RAMA - March 9, 2013

In case anyone is curious, the “reviews” for the 30 minutes shown in the UK are mostly sparkling superlatives.

491. dmduncan - March 9, 2013

487. RAMA – March 9, 2013

Hey conspiracies are far more interesting to think about than your uninteresting sexual grievances against the planet.

Booooriiiiing

492. Baby - March 9, 2013

guys…….. new trailer is out check it on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxZcxkFZZP0

And no I am not trolling you

493. Ahmed - March 9, 2013

The new trailer is AMAZING

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RxZcxkFZZP0#t=0s

494. AJ - March 9, 2013

492:

That is the best trailer yet. Wow.

495. dmduncan - March 9, 2013

GOOD stuff right there!

496. Baby - March 9, 2013

494

yeah I so agree.

497. Ahmed - March 9, 2013

Now, I’m officially very excited about the movie. The look, the action & the music all look great.

498. The Last Vulcan - March 9, 2013

This trailer is the best one yet IMHO.

@484. dmduncan – Invisible, lethal, and very difficult to prove that it was intentional. It’s a great way of getting rid of a troublesome head of state.

499. Mad Mann - March 9, 2013

488. Craiger – March 9, 2013

Seriously, dude? No way! Trek needs to RETAIN the Trek audience, and maybe pull in more like-minded people.

I knows things are the way the are now and there is no way of going back to the “good ol’ days” but I do miss them. I miss the days when Star Trek was considered more for intelligent folks.

Maybe if it gets back on TV….

500. Curious Cadet - March 9, 2013

@486. RAMA,
“are you telling us the target audience of STID (teenage boys only? I think not) don’t know that they are not in mature relationships when they sleep around? Um, I think they do…”

No, I’m telling you that teenage boys (or men of any age) are being taught that its OK to objectify women for the purposes of using them for their own sexual gratification in immature relationships, through casual depiction in modern cinema. Teenage boys in particular are learning how to behave toward women from watching successful adult men depicted on screen.

And yes I’m saying teenage boys, and men in general are the target audience for trek. It’s certainly not women. Why do you think it’s rated PG-13? If the primary audience were adults it would be rated R. But teenage boys are the audience that drives the box office on Summer blockbuster films. That is who Abrams is making this film for: the teenage boy inside all of us — NOT Trek fans (who mostly got into it as teenage boys).

501. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#483 RAMA:

…but in the US its the prudish, religious influence that makes us run in fright from skin or any dirty dirty sexual thoughts.

This is a red herring. Both Curious Cadet and myself are not talking about puritanical values attributed to sex, or sex as a cultural taboo. We are talking about equal opportunity between the portrayal of men and women in film and the effect of imagery on the audience on a psychological level.

To use a metaphor, think of a person like a jigsaw puzzle. If a person likes to engage in casual sexual encounters between consenting adults that is but one piece of their puzzle. The other pieces would be composed of hobbies, intellectual pursuits, artistic expression, favorite foods, favorite books/movies/television shows, the love they feel for family and friends, nuances of temperament, their occupation, their dreams, etc. In a scene like the one described in the spoilers, they are not giving a whole picture of these women, they are giving them but one puzzle piece and one puzzle piece only.

The bothersome part of that is that its a common practice within film. Women are often objectified as sexual tokens with little effort given to their personhood.

I am exceedingly amused, however, that I am continuously being accused of being both a prude and overly religious when as a woman who has devoted her life to the pursuit of scientific exploration (i.e. I both studied in school and work in the field of biotechnology) I’m agnostic. It’s actually quite hilarious on a personal note because my mother has been telling me since the moment I first came home spouting Darwinism that I’m going to hell for NOT being religious, so the irony is actually kind of delightful. I’m going to email her the link to this thread (though in her early 70’s, she is a Trekkie, too), I think it’s going to make her day. ;)

502. dmduncan - March 9, 2013

498. The Last Vulcan – March 9, 2013

Yes. Cancer occurs naturally, providing an ostensibly natural cause of death, thereby deflecting conspiracy theorizing.

Experimenting with death-by-natural-causes gives the sorts of diabolical minds that have been proven to inhabit the power structures of Washington DC a politically clean assassination weapon.

And what has Star Trek taught us but that if you can dream it you can make it?

For every Elon Musk there’s an Alan Dulles.

We don’t all dream of going to the stars.

503. Aurore - March 9, 2013

Regarding the new trailer:

…..My crew is back, people!!!!!!!!!

DamOn, if you’re reading this, I still don’t like the title, man.

Yeah, I know…you still don’t care…..So, we’re even.

:)

504. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#500 Curious Cadet:

No, I’m telling you that teenage boys (or men of any age) are being taught that its OK to objectify women for the purposes of using them for their own sexual gratification in immature relationships, through casual depiction in modern cinema.

Very well said, sir!

505. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#493. Ahmed:

Thank you for posting the link! I saw it last night in front of Oz, and I agree, it is a great trailer. Made me excited about the film again, as the spoilers had dampened my enthusiasm a bit.

506. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#466 MJ:

What an outstanding and thoughtful post! Now there is Gene Rodenberry’s true vision of how the sexes and sexual situations should be treated if they are to be covered in a modern Star Trek movie or series.

Thank you, my good sir! You have me blushing.

And I get what you’re trying to say, i.e. gratuitous scenes.

If I can use “Wrath of Khan” as an example without being accused of being an old timer unable to accept change by the younger fans among us, lol, I only bring up Khan only because it was a film of high critical acclaim. And the fans also loved it.

And as we both know there were two main female protagonists in the film: Carol Marcus and Saavik. Both women were shown as being incredible thinkers in their line of work, Carol as a scientist who developed Genesis and Saavik as a cadet savant. There were no gratuitous scenes because there didn’t need to be. Each contributed to the plot in a very direct way. Carol as the scientist who unwittingly developed a device that would turn into a weapon by Khan and Saavik as the one to question Kirk’s methods and philosophy on the no win scenario. At no time where either woman shown dressed scantily or portrayed for the sheer purpose of adding sexual imagery to the film. They were in the plot because they belonged there. And they were portrayed as individuals with a defined personality each.

The point here is that a great film, one loved by audiences and critics alike, doesn’t need gratuitous scenes or frat-boy humor to be successful. Antics that, when added, cheapen the allegory of a futuristic equal opportunity utopia. So yes, I agree with the message you are conveying.

507. MJ - March 9, 2013

@476 “The only reason Uhura would have tampons is because she menstruates. Funny thing, somehow I don’t think it even occurred to the film makers to show tampons, condoms or Scotty taking a piss or a crap. This is all you, MJ and none of these have anything to do with sexual intimacy.”

Exactly! And obviously Kirk, behaving badly — most likely going on a bender and ending up with two cat girls in mid — has noting to do with sexual intimacy either.

Yep! That is the point I was trying to make all along. Thanks!

@476 “I would actually hope that by the 23rd Century, that STDs are a thing of the past.”

But think of the great possibilities of public service ads that could be generated from this movie: “STID shows you how to avoid STD’s” See!

@480 “And from that the most obvious conclusion is that it is promiscuous and entirely for Kirk’s pleasure, a reward for being such a stud. How the women in the scene feel about it, will most likely not even occur to a single boy or man. While I have not seen the scene, it sounds like Kirk gets the call and quickly leaves, which will likely be perceived as without regard for the women with whom he’s otherwise “finished”. This kind of scene is commonplace in Hollywood. I mentioned “Flight” earlier which actually opens with this kind of scene. And I viewed the woman in the scene as disposable, someone Denzel Washington was just using.”

Well said! I agree completely.

@RAMA. OK, thanks for your latest lecture. Maybe you should move to Europe? Perhaps Austria, where apparently 40% of the people don’t think Hitler was all that bad — you could join them in seeing STID a week ahead of the rest of us. Plus, I hear you can get great real estate deals right now Croatia and Serbia. :-)

508. Red Dead Ryan - March 9, 2013

Look, we don’t need threesomes in Trek because it doesn’t belong in Trek. Sex in general doesn’t belong in Trek. People want to get away from it all when they go see a “Star Trek” movie, which, by the way, is also being shown to young children who don’t need to be exposed to such crap.

Whether or not the scene being discussed objectifies women or not is irrelevent. What is a more pertinent question is whether it is appropriate for this movie or not. It is not, in my opinion.

Shock-value tactics like Kirk having sex with two feline women make a mockery of the character of James T. Kirk and obviously offend many women by continuing to promote female characters as sex objects.

“Star Trek” has to appeal to the widest range of demographics, and as such, has to be responsible for what it depicts.

509. MJ - March 9, 2013

@506 “The point here is that a great film, one loved by audiences and critics alike, doesn’t need gratuitous scenes or frat-boy humor to be successful. Antics that, when added, cheapen the allegory of a futuristic equal opportunity utopia. So yes, I agree with the message you are conveying.”

I agree 110%, Trekkiegal63.

Hopefully the message is getting back to Orci, etc. here. Plus, hopefully they will get this sort of feedback as well with a test audience.

It’s very possible here that you, I, Red Dead Ryan, Curious Cadet, and a number of others here who really want what is best for this movie, may be playing a part right now in getting JJ to “move the dial” for JJ such that this scene gets removed from the final cut of the film.

It”s hard though, as others, even some women here, think we are stunting Kirk’s natural sexual growth (and they’d love to see these types of scenes with Kirk), while another set of folks want to see all kinds of misogynistic sex in Trek movies (Crybaby Hater: “JJ Abrams had it my way, Kirk would be in bed with 5 cat men.)

510. boborci - March 9, 2013

509. We r not testing this movie for audiences.

511. Red Dead Ryan - March 9, 2013

Also, I don’t think movies (and especially Trek films) are the proper forums to teach young people about sex and birth control/STD preventive measures.

Also, if I understand correctly, Europe has a problem with the sex trafficking/slavery of women. So I don’t think they have such a healthy attitude towards sex as RAMA seems to suggest.

512. Red Dead Ryan - March 9, 2013

#510.

Maybe you should.

Hey, I’m looking forward to the movie, but we don’t need any scenes featuring frat-boy antics derailing our interest in it.

513. MJ - March 9, 2013

@510. Sorry if this may have unintentionally brought up any bad memories of the Cowboys and Aliens test audience reactions.

514. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#510 boborci:

Did you test the first one?

515. Jonboc - March 9, 2013

#508. “Look, we don’t need threesomes in Trek because it doesn’t belong in Trek.”

You, sir, despite what you may truly believe, do not decide, nor are you the final voice on what “does” or “does not” belong in Trek. Period.

516. MJ - March 9, 2013

Hmm, I don’t see where Red Dead Ryan is claiming to be speaking for everyone? I am not getting that from his posts?

517. AJ - March 9, 2013

Had to finally chime in.

The scene in the film is probably one minute or so, and it depicts something which American society started coming to terms with in the mid- 1970s: The fact that sex can involve multiple partners.

It’s like saying that the scene in “Apocalypse Now” where Martin Sheen’s character is awakened in a drunken haze at the start ‘objectifies’ booze, when it is actually something that humanizes the protagonist early on.

We know Kirk is a lady’s man. We now know he did a great thing in rescuing Spock (and the planet), but is to be smacked down by Starfleet for defying the Prime Directive. He retreats to booze and chicks which was all his life was about before joining Starfleet. He’s blowing off steam and retrenching before Pike pulls him back once again.

518. Red Dead Ryan - March 9, 2013

#515.

Did you read the part later in my post where I wrote “in my opinion”?

NO? You glossed over it? Deliberately ignored that part?

WHOOPS!

Next time, read the whole post before criticising, Einstein.

519. MJ - March 9, 2013

@518. RDR, how much do you want to bet that a bunch of mysterious newbies we have never heard of start showing up here now and slamming us?

520. MJ - March 9, 2013

or watch for the return of Long Phrases.

521. Red Dead Ryan - March 9, 2013

#519.

A few hundred bars of gold-pressed latinum. :-)

522. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#517 AJ:

Martin Sheen’s character is awakened in a drunken haze at the start ‘objectifies’ booze.

The difference? Woman are sentient beings with thoughts, dreams and critical thought. They are not a ‘vice’, nor should they be treated as one.

#515. Jonboc:

You, sir, despite what you may truly believe, do not decide, nor are you the final voice on what “does” or “does not” belong in Trek. Period.

He is entitled to his opinion, just as every other freethinking individual on this board is. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with him, but that does mean that you have no right to try and silence him just because his opinion differs from your own.

523. Red Dead Ryan - March 9, 2013

#522.

“He is entitled to his opinion, just as every other freethinking individual on this board is. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with him, but that does mean that you have no right to try and silence him just because his opinion differs from your own.”

Yes, exactly! Thank you!

524. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#523 Red Dead Ryan:

No problem. :)

525. dmduncan - March 9, 2013

Kirk with two cat women doesn’t show anything but Kirk’s immaturity. I think that’s probably the idea in showing that. He still has work to do to get beyond the fratboy stuff and to become the Kirk from TOS.

You can’t document the maturation of a fully mature tree.

526. dmduncan - March 9, 2013

Movie looks absolutely badass.

527. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#525. dmduncan:

Kirk with two cat women doesn’t show anything but Kirk’s immaturity.

Yet, as I pointed out far, far above, you can accomplish this without objectifying women. For example: drunken antics, lying on an official report (and doing so without double checking with your first officer to make sure he was collaborating your story thus exhibiting overconfidence that he would lie for you, going against Vulcan tenants to do so, which we know TOS Spock would have done for his captain but this Spock seems to be on a rather self-destructive path), thinking that rules do not apply to you, etc.

528. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#526. dmduncan:

Aside from the scene I take exception to, I agree.

529. MJ - March 9, 2013

@526. @528 Me too!

530. boborci - March 9, 2013

514 no, we did not test the first one either .

531. MJ - March 9, 2013

Another negative side effect from havintg that scene is that we had better get prepared now to have to hear a set of tired jokes from non-Trek fans for years related to Kirk and Pussy.

532. Jonboc - March 9, 2013

“Whether or not the scene being discussed objectifies women or not is irrelevent. What is a more pertinent question is whether it is appropriate for this movie or not. It is not, in my opinion.”

You see, THAT is an opinion.

“Look, we don’t need threesomes in Trek because it doesn’t belong in Trek. Sex in general doesn’t belong in Trek.”

…and THAT, from a prior paragraph, is a statement. See the difference?

And Trekkiegal…”He is entitled to his opinion, just as every other freethinking individual on this board is.”

agreed!

” That doesn’t mean you have to agree with him, but that does mean that you have no right to try and silence him just because his opinion differs from your own.”

While a bit dramatic, I agree with this as well. On Red’s statement, I should have said this…you, sir, in my ever so humble opinion, despite what you may truly believe, do not decide, nor are you the final voice on what “does” or “does not” belong in Trek. Period.

Is that better? :)

533. Jonboc - March 9, 2013

#526 “Movie looks absolutely badass.”

Agreed, just saw the new trailer. Great action laced with fun character interaction. looking forward to the expanded trailer that will accompany GI Joe.

534. RAMA - March 9, 2013

507. MJ you really are amazingly out there, I think we should start a youtube channel of your quotes…sex and tampons first, now we are comparing freer sexual attitudes to Hitler…wow, this is mystifying, though of course there is the old net truism that once an argument fails, start comparing to Nazis. lol I think your post also falls under the old George W. Bushism of limited thinking..ie: if they aren’t with you they’re against you. Um yes I’ll leave the country..that’s it….

Now actually I don’t really have a problem with the violence in the movie, I’m simply pointing out the irony that you are embarrassed by sex as opposed the killing and death.

535. RAMA - March 9, 2013

492. If you’re into conspiracy theories then I’m not surprised you find common sense boring. :-)

536. RAMA - March 9, 2013

528. Trekkiegal as to your numerous posts, it is true Hollywood shows more women in states of undress and so on, and yes it’s a cultural issue all over the world, women are shown this way much more than men, however simply seeing two women in bed with a man or even one really…is not an immediate objectifying of women. Now if Kirk forced the two felines into bed I would object to the scene, but otherwise the two women apparently had no problems doing this, and I feel the scene probably has a purpose. and is therefore not gratuitous. Are the writer’s objectifying Kirk if he appears without all his clothes in the scene? What if there were two men in the scene, are they objectifying men then?

537. RAMA - March 9, 2013

532. Explain why a “sexual” or implied sexual scene is inappropriate for ST? Is it because scifi is geeky stuff and shouldn’t have such real life, icky stuff in it? Is it cooties? Should ST pretend sex doesn’t exist in it’s world? As I have pointed out and presented evidence, this was not Gene Roddenberry’s intention at all for Trek. If you’re going to claim like MJ that action movies, scifi movies, and adventure movies don’t have sex in them, then again, I can clearly and demonstrable show you where you’re wrong.

538. RAMA - March 9, 2013

Sorry Jonboc, I meant to direct that to the person who made the comments in 533. Wish this site had an editing feature…

539. Craiger - March 9, 2013

Did Starfleet order Kirk and crew to save that planet from the volcano or did Kirk ask his crew if they wanted to volunteer for that mission? Would their be a difference in demoting Kirk? Maybe the crew would back Kirk up for violating the Prime Directive to save Spock?

540. Bird of Prey - March 9, 2013

“…resulting in Pike being injured”

Again?? Can’t the poor guy catch a break?

541. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#536. RAMA:

Are the writer’s objectifying Kirk if he appears without all his clothes in the scene? What if there were two men in the scene, are they objectifying men then?

I already addressed this in my post #453:

But here is what I said:

The difference between Kirk and those two women? Kirk is an established character. He has been given a personality outside of his sex life. We know he likes fast moving things, and is a brilliant strategist and if taste-buds are genetic, he’ll share a penchant for Saurian brandy with his TOS counterpart. These girls? IF the spoilers are indeed accurate, they exist only for a sixty second scene. They aren’t given depth or nuances beyond ‘hot chicks in Kirk’s bed’. We don’t know how they take their coffee or if they prefer Steinbeck to Poe (or whatever equivalent of classic authors their own world has, I’m speaking metaphorically here).

And the definition of objectification is:

Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one’s sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification. Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person’s personality or sentience.

…and to answer your last question on your post about a scene with three men, or one woman with two men. Yes. If the two men are just shown in bed in a state of undress and given no other personality traits or nuances then they are certainly being objectified. All things being equal it can go both ways (“Magic Mike” being a prime example). However, the reality is that women are far more often portrayed this way than men, statistically speaking.

542. Johnny - March 9, 2013

“527. Trekkiegal63

#525. dmduncan:

Kirk with two cat women doesn’t show anything but Kirk’s immaturity.

Yet, as I pointed out far, far above, you can accomplish this without objectifying women. For example: drunken antics, lying on an official report (and doing so without double checking with your first officer to make sure he was collaborating your story thus exhibiting overconfidence that he would lie for you, going against Vulcan tenants to do so, which we know TOS Spock would have done for his captain but this Spock seems to be on a rather self-destructive path), thinking that rules do not apply to you, etc.”

But I also think this scene is meant to specifically reflect Kirk’s ROMANTIC immaturity. Remember that Carol Marcus is in the movie, dammit! Do you think she’s going to be “objectified”? I sure don’t… because she’s a brilliant scientist. I’m sure she’ll be a catalyst that forces Kirk to slow down and mature throughout the movie.

543. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#530. boborci:

Gotcha. Thank you for answering my question.

Follow-up question, if I may:

Does the lack of using a test audience have to do with the veil of secrecy surrounding the film and if so, were the journalists in France and Brazil sworn to confidentiality or given information you, and the others on the production team, expected not to spoil the overall plot of the film too drastically?

544. Brevard - March 9, 2013

So, Kirk can have a 3-way with 2 cat people, but having a gay character on board the enterprise is still off limits. Okay.

545. Disinvited - March 9, 2013

#530. boborci – March 9, 2013

So the reedit of the opening 9 was based solely on the IMAX feedback? Gutsy!

546. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#542. Johnny:

Carol Marcus is indeed a brilliant scientist. Love her entirely. And I certainly hope they portray in her scientific element. As for her and Kirk and whether or not she’ll represent Kirk looking for more depth in his interactions with people, I certainly hope that would be the case. And I would hope that regardless of who brought Kirk to that epiphany.

…however, it doesn’t change the fact that the two cat women are objectified, as they are given no personality beyond ‘hot chicks in Kirk’s bed’. There are also other ways to teach Kirk to look beyond taking those around him at face value, to respect others and their emotional needs. For example, both spoilers and the comics have clearly indicated that Spock is going though a self-destructive phase – which is entirely understandable, given what he has gone through – and up until this point Kirk has really given no indication of noticing this. Spock’s situation could easily be a wake-up call, i.e. ‘how could I work so closely with someone, have First Officer, going out of his way to be so self-destructive and not notice? Perhaps its time, as a leader worth serving under, I pay more attention to what’s going on around me and become less focused on my own childhood angst.’ There you go, no objectification of women necessary.

547. dmduncan - March 9, 2013

If you show the racism of a racist character that doesn’t mean the filmmakers are endorsing racism. With objectification, same dealio.

Kirk just ain’t THERE yet. Seems like a big part of this movie deals with getting him there, a good chunk of the way at least.

548. Marcus - March 9, 2013

391. boborci – March 8, 2013 … well, so many of u appear totally skilled at avoiding reading anything of relevance and importance regarding the reality of the world we live in, I’m sure most can handle avoiding spoilers ;)

417. boborci – March 8, 2013 …wonder why all the rattling? i mean, it’s not like we’ve started a half dozen undeclared pre-emptive wars across the world against countries that haven’t attacked us (just in this century). I mean, what are they thinking?

442. boborci – March 8, 2013 …I think what you say is mostly true. but history has a way of complicating things.

————–

@ Boborci, I agree. While everyone was blaming Bush for a preemptive strike on Iraq, they keep forgetting about “Desert Storm” and “Persian Gulf War”. Saddam used to test the ‘no fly zone’, which was put into play after the first Iraq War. As a matter of historical fact, Bill Clinton and Al Gore warned about Saddam’s nuclear weapons cache prior to leaving office. My first question would be: Who did Saddam sell them to?

549. MJ - March 9, 2013

@534 “MJ you really are amazingly out there, I think we should start a youtube channel of your quotes…sex and tampons first, now we are comparing freer sexual attitudes to Hitler…wow, this is mystifying, though of course there is the old net truism that once an argument fails, start comparing to Nazis. lol I think your post also falls under the old George W. Bushism of limited thinking..ie: if they aren’t with you they’re against you. Um yes I’ll leave the country..that’s it…”

Wow, you are so full of shit. I have no issues with sex, and I was fighting liberal causes when I bet your were in diapers. And I am an agnostic to boot! I know these facts are inconvenient for you in your personal attack mode here to not to be able to label me as a Bush conservative (LOL, pun intended) or a religious nut — sorry about that.

And, AS YOU VERY WELL KNOW, my Hitler comments were in regards to your little lecture to all of us on Europe, not a reference to sex. Nice try!

I’ll say it one more time — I just don’t like much sex mixed in much with my Star Trek, and definitely not kinky frat-boy sex where women are made into convenient objects for male characters.

So continue to crucify me if you must for having this opinion.

@544 “So, Kirk can have a 3-way with 2 cat people, but having a gay character on board the enterprise is still off limits. Okay.”

Who here is saying that? I’d love a gay character — bring one in — its about time! But just as I have said about the unnecessary heterosexual threesome sex scene, I don’t need to see a similar implied gay sex scene in STID.

550. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

If you show the racism of a racist character that doesn’t mean the filmmakers are endorsing racism. With objectification, same dealio

It depends on how the character is being portrayed. If a racist character is shown as only racist, that’s all he is, that is the sum of all of his parts, then, if you’re a writer, you’re going to have a problem of believability, because no one would believe a person like that could be redeemed. i.e. what is the context in which this character is being used?

The entire plot of “Undiscovered Country” centered around Kirk being racist against Klingons. Eventually, when he reflected on his own attitude, and when he witnessed how far those around him had sunk, ethics-wise, to prevent an alliance between the Federation and the Klingon Empire, he realized just how poisonous his attitude had been. It was a highly effective film. But the thing is that Kirk was portrayed as a character with layers. He wasn’t one dimensional. He’s a being capable of making mistakes and learning from them.

These girls, in this scene, as described? Aren’t given any personality, any layers, beyond bringers of Kirk’s sexual gratification. So let’s say you’re right, let’s say that Kirk learns, later in the movie, that his cavalier approach to relationships isn’t what he wants long-term. Either way those girls were used, both as sexual objects, and nameless, personality-less stepping stones to get the protagonist to an epiphany.

There are other ways to go about getting the same results which don’t objectify women in the process.

551. K-7 - March 9, 2013

…still waiting for Jack and RAMA to answer these two questions:

So do you both think that including a scene in a future Trek movie with Uhura with two guys in bed (assuming it fit the story) is a good idea then for a Star Trek movie?

And, in general, would you like to see more multi-partner inferred sex scenes with Trek crew members in future Trek movies, provided the scenes fit with the story?.

552. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

… I forgot to mention that the Klingons were also portrayed sympathetically in “Undiscovered Country”. Given personality. Given depth. Yes, Chang was a jerk. But Azetbur was portrayed as someone who genuinely wanted peace between her Empire and the Federation, wanted what was best for her people.

553. Marcus - March 9, 2013

@ 552, Within the movie “Undiscovered Country”, the story was based upon the Cold War. Federation (US/UK) vrs. Klingon (Russa).

554. MJ - March 9, 2013

@547 “If you show the racism of a racist character that doesn’t mean the filmmakers are endorsing racism. With objectification, same dealio.”

DM, I certainly would like to think that these two felines will come across as more than just disposable F-toys for bad-boy Kirk, but it doesn’t seem like that is going to be the case.

I hope I am wrong and that you are right here.

555. boborci - March 9, 2013

545. no, had nothing to do with IMAX feedback… what we showed was work in progress. as we progressed, we decided it was better another way. we may change it back before it’s released!

556. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#530. boborci:

…as a follow-up to my post #543, I was implying of course, that the spoilers contained in the segments of the movies shown could have been meant to be confidential, but leaked against consent.

I guess I’m trying to suss out with my questioning is this… the leaked information, dispensable?

557. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#553 Marcus:

…and also contained a very racist Kirk, who, as the main protagonist, had to come to terms with that. ;)

558. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#553 Marcus:

“Undiscovered Country” Transcript:

KIRK: Spock?
SPOCK: I prefer it dark.
KIRK: Dining on ashes?
SPOCK: You were right. It was arrogant presumption on my part that got us into this situation. You and the Doctor might have been killed.
KIRK: The night is young. You said it yourself. It was logical. Peace is worth a few personal risks. …You’re a great one for logic. I’m a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread. We’re both extremists. Reality is probably somewhere in between us. …I couldn’t get past the death of my son.
SPOCK: I was prejudiced by her accomplishments as a Vulcan.
KIRK: Gorkon had to die before I understood how prejudiced I was.
SPOCK: Is it possible …that we two, you and I, have grown so old and so inflexible …that we have outlived our usefulness? …Would that constitute a joke?
KIRK: Don’t crucify yourself. It wasn’t your fault.
SPOCK: I was responsible.
KIRK: For no actions but your own
SPOCK: That is not what you said at your trial.
KIRK: That was as Captain of a ship. Human beings…
SPOCK: But Captain, we both know that I am not human.
KIRK: Do you want to know something? …Everybody’s human.
SPOCK: I find that remark …insulting.
KIRK: Come on, I need you.

559. MJ - March 9, 2013

I used to love ST VI, but it has not aged well over time. The somewhat boring but awesome looking and sounding The Motion Picture, interestingly enough, has aged the least of the movies in my opinion.

560. boborci - March 9, 2013

548. Saddam never had nukes. He didn’t sell tem to anyone.

561. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#559 MJ:

I still love it, but mostly because I thought it a great character piece. It certainly is dated (pinkish/purple paint blood, for example), but the journey the characters underwent still resonates, I feel.

And it had some great one-liners…

“You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon.” ;)

562. Johnny - March 9, 2013

@Trekkiegal63

But what is so incredibly wrong with the concept of one-dimensional female (or for that matter, male) characters? By your logic, you’re saying that if a character doesn’t have any depth and is only there as a plot point, then they shouldn’t be in the film. That’s ridiculous. Every single character in a movie doesn’t have the time to be fleshed out, of course. Did any of the Orion girls in the Original Series have “layers”? Or were they just there to be exotic, green eye-candy?

563. Jack - March 9, 2013

Okay, I’m no longer particularly troubled by spoilers of the set-up — these weren’t surprises. But I get grumpy when people break embargoes, if that was the case here. You’re right, I shouldn’t be on Trek or Ent sites if I don’t want to be spoiled…

564. Trekkiegal63 - March 9, 2013

#562 Johnny:

I’m honestly a bit flabbergasted that you ask this… you do realize that women being objectified is so common in film and in advertising that it’s become a tremendous social issue? Not just as a sexist problem, but also having to do with image, in how young girls see themselves and their place in the world?

Here are some stats for you (from the site seejane.org):

Males outnumber females 3 to 1 in family films. In contrast, females comprise just over 50% of the population in the United States. Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio, as seen in family films, is the same as it was in 1946.

Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males.

From 2006 to 2009, not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in law, or politics. In these films, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce.

Here is an article for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/07/magazine/hers-the-smurfette-principle.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

And here is what the American Psychological Association as to say on the matter:

http://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual-objectification.pdf

Excerpt:

Objectification theory provides an important framework for understanding,
researching, and intervening to improve women’s lives in a sociocultural context
that sexually objectifies the female body and equates a woman’s worth with her
body’s appearance and sexual functions. The purpose of this Major Contribution
is to advance theory, research, practice, and training related to the sexual
objectification of women. The purpose of this article is to introduce readers to
objectification theory and related research, extend objectification theory to our
understanding of women’s substance use and/or abuse and immersed forms of
sexual objectification via sexually objectifying environments, and provide an
overview of this Major Contribution on Sexual Objectification of Women.

…and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Wow. Honestly!!!!

565. Disinvited - March 9, 2013

# 555. boborci – March 9, 2013

And I find that even gutsier, i.e. that you are not falling back on the standard crutch of handing out opinion cards and trying to “measure” audience reactions.

Fascinating.

Kudos.

566. boborci - March 9, 2013

Disnivited

Gutsy or stupid? we shall see!;)

567. Craiger - March 9, 2013

How come in TOS Kirk gets away with violating orders all the time and in the AU he doesn’t? Wouldn’t that become repetitive if Kirk got demoted then promoted, then demoted, then promoted again every time he violates orders to save his ship and crew? Or could this sequel make changes allowing for violating the Prime Directive in certain circumstances?

568. boborci - March 9, 2013

567 craiger

in the AU, there is no “all the time” yet cuz there’s only been one movie!

569. dmduncan - March 9, 2013

550. Trekkiegal63 – March 9, 2013

We gotta see the scene. To me it sounds like a fast way of establishing where Kirk still is in development. If your complaint is that it objectifies cat women, then the scene may be doing its job.

The camera has a point of view, and sometimes it’s a mix of third and first person at the same time. Even though Kirk is IN the frame with two cat women, it can also be from, i.e., favor, his point of view.

But I have to SEE the scene. It’s a lot to speculate about on hearsay and out of context.

570. Curious Cadet - March 9, 2013

@565. Disinvited,
“And I find that even gutsier, i.e. that you are not falling back on the standard crutch of handing out opinion cards and trying to “measure” audience reactions.”

I suspect they rely in the court of public opinion. They know what they like, and just like Joe Biden “outing” the president’s position on gay marriage, these guys release things they are unsure about in “previews” and gauge the overall reaction via all sources, not just the immediate screening audience. Whether they do is intentionally or not, one cannot ignore the result. Certainly the threesome scene has given them some food for thought whether they were looking for it or not.

It’s March, and the producers are still presenting footage with the caveat things may still change. Hmmmm. And how long have they been editing this film? Abrams said ST09 was locked and finished almost 6 months before its premiere, yet this one is still being changed around with less than 2 months to go? That speaks volumes.

571. Ceti Alpha 5 - March 9, 2013

Kirk in bed with two cat women, eh?
NICE.

572. dmduncan - March 9, 2013

Hey, according to Barbara Walters on 20/20 tonight, Mr. Spock is America’s THIRD most favorite non-human TV character of all time.

He was beat out by Lassie and Kermit the Frog.

573. MJ - March 9, 2013

@563. “Okay, I’m no longer particularly troubled by spoilers of the set-up — these weren’t surprises. But I get grumpy when people break embargoes, if that was the case here.”

Yea, as someone who shelled out bucks for the Hobbit preview, and who has had to live through years of this ridiculous level of JJ secrecy, I am getting more and more worked up here in thinking about how these 30 minute previews got released in Brazil and France, and how the movie is going to get released a week ahead of us in the states.

You say you are going to have secrecy until the movie opens, then stick with your F”ing Stalinist secrecy policy and don’t give certain fan groups special access, and don’t given others the movie a week before the rest of us.

This is complete bullshit!

574. MJ - March 9, 2013

“From 2006 to 2009, not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in law, or politics. In these films, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce.”

Wow, that is depressing!

575. Curious Cadet - March 9, 2013

@550 trekkiegal63,
“let’s say that Kirk learns, later in the movie, that his cavalier approach to relationships isn’t what he wants long-term. Either way those girls were used, both as sexual objects, and nameless, personality-less stepping stones to get the protagonist to an epiphany. There are other ways to go about getting the same results which don’t objectify women in the process.”

I don’t know if there are other ways to show this. I suppose using my “Flight” example, if Kirk later ruminates on how badly he treated the “cat women”, and we learn something more about their value… But honestly, art imitates life, and there are plenty of men who never get to know the women they are with, moving to the next before feelings and emotion complicate their carnal pursuits. To friends and family looking in on these “relationships”, they are going to see exactly what the audience sees with Kirk and the cat women. So, I defend the right of the filmmaker to depict this, because it directly mirrors life, even as I caution them to carefully consider the message they may unintentionally send with such objectification.

Unfortunately I think MJ hit the nail on the head here … This scene appears that it is played as a sophomoric joke, at the expense of the women, in that Kirk literally gets a lot of pussy. A juvenile double-entendre at best. It’s like a joke I would expect Seth McFarlane to make in an obligatory Family Guy TOS flashback. So it’s hard for me to recover from that impression for it to make any kind of serious contribution to Kirk’s future development.

Ultimately I’m conflicted here. I don’t need to see anybody having sex in Star Trek. Nobody had sex in Star Wars and that franchise has done just fine. But I would also be curious to see this “adult” side of the characters. But ultimately if it gives us nothing of importance other than taking the franchise down the same HBO adult-i-fied rabbit hole, merely for the sake of being able to do it, then I think I’d rather just skip it. Nothing turned my stomach more than watching Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis getting it on in Nemesis. But at least that had a point. I’m not so sure this adolescent joke will, and certainly not to justify the potential damage it may otherwise do …

576. MJ - March 9, 2013

“Unfortunately I think MJ hit the nail on the head here … This scene appears that it is played as a sophomoric joke, at the expense of the women, in that Kirk literally gets a lot of pussy. A juvenile double-entendre at best. It’s like a joke I would expect Seth McFarlane to make in an obligatory Family Guy TOS flashback. So it’s hard for me to recover from that impression for it to make any kind of serious contribution to Kirk’s future development.”

Yea, if this scene goes forward, we are going to be hearing stupid Kirk-pussy jokes for the rest of our lives. Bank on that!

“Remember Star Trek Into Darkness — the one where Kirk really got all the pussy he could handle. Ha! Ha! Ha! Drool”

577. Dave H - March 9, 2013

MJ, you raise a great point. That scene is going to create those types of horrid adolescent jokes for years to come. Us Trek fans will never hear the end of it from your family and friends who aren’t fans.

578. Adolescent Nightmare - March 9, 2013

Uh, we don’t learn about our life lessons from movies. It’s bizzarre old people that quote ancient Star Trek like it has some important key to life.

And threesomes are great!

579. Red Shirt Diaries - March 9, 2013

I certainly don’t mind looking at some threesome action on internet pourn…even at $19.95 a month. :-)

I certainly don’t want to have this on Star Trek through. Come on!

580. Johnny - March 9, 2013

@TrekkieGal

Again… how exactly is this different from how women were portrayed in the Original Series? Orion girls?

Look. It’s not like Star Trek is lacking strong female characters. Uhura and Carol Marcus are in this movie! So what if Kirk has sex with a couple of women?

It’s 2013. No one is going to watch Star Trek Into Darkness and come away thinking it objectified women. Come on. If that is the one thing you focus on, then the movie hasn’t done its job.

581. Curious Cadet - March 9, 2013

@580 Johnny,

Wow really!?

Nobody comes away from a James Bond movie in 2013 thinking it objectified women. That’s how it objectification works. It casually presents women as objects as commonplace. The effect is subconscious.

Bringing up the Orion girls from the original series is like saying, what’s wrong with white actors performing in blackface … Al Jolsen did it?

Look, it’s not a formula. Two strong female characters don’t allow two women to be objectified. That’s like saying it’s OK to abuse your wife as long as you respect your mother, they balance out, right?

582. Johnny - March 9, 2013

@581 Curious Cadet

Don’t be ridiculous. You’re saying by your definition, the Orion girls were not “objectified”?

583. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 9, 2013

@582. Johnny

No, I think he means that you can’t use the excuse that they did it back then to justifiy that it’s OK to do it now.

584. K-7 - March 9, 2013

…still waiting for Jack and RAMA to answer these two questions:

So do you both think that including a scene in a future Trek movie with Uhura with two guys in bed (assuming it fit the story) is a good idea then for a Star Trek movie?

And, in general, would you like to see more multi-partner inferred sex scenes with Trek crew members in future Trek movies, provided the scenes fit with the story?..

585. Red Dead Ryan - March 9, 2013

Let’s face it, the whole “Kirk having sex with two cat-women” could end up as part of William Shatner’s comedy digs at J.J Abrams.

It’ll be a gold mine for Shatner, and an embarassment for Abrams and co.

586. MJ - March 9, 2013

Wow RDR, I hadn’t considered that. Shat will certainly eat this up (pun intended).

PS: It’s interesting how Jack and RAMA seem scared to answer K-7’s tough questions.

587. Baby - March 10, 2013

@ 575. Curious Cadet

there was no sex in star wars because star wars was marketed mostly to kids.

Trek has always been a more mature franchise.

however the star wars prequels and the in between cartoons did imply sex between anakin and padme

588. Curious Cadet - March 10, 2013

@587 Baby,

I was a kid when Star Wars came out, and I can assure you it was not marketed mostly at kids. In fact, I had only mild interest in seeing it. It was the adults who overwhelmingly were encouraging me to see it.

Simply stated, Star Wars did not need sex to tell the story in any way. The fact that the prequels added this element didn’t particularly improve them.

589. Craiger - March 10, 2013

Is this the Catwoman we are talking about?

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061205201830/memoryalpha/en/images/6/60/MRess.jpg

590. AJ - March 10, 2013

If Chris PIne plays the cat-women scene with his shirt off, guess who’s being ‘objectified?’ The cat-women are made-up puppets, whereas a shirtless Kirk will get the girls into the cinema.

591. endeavour crew - March 10, 2013

559- Totally agree MJ………TMP gets better with time

592. I am not Herbert - March 10, 2013

it’s just more of the same: IMMATURE PANDERING (T.M. JJ-verse/boborci)

it would be ILLOGICAL to expect anything different… =(

Star Trek: 90210 (the hook-ups)

593. Red Dead Ryan - March 10, 2013

#590.

It’ll get Keachick into the theatre (numerous times?) for sure, but women in general don’t view men as men view women. Which is to say that women don’t/can’t visually obsess over a shirtless guy as much as guy can over a hot woman. Differences in human biology.

Gay men are more likely to objectify Kirk than women are. Heck, it was the gay audience lusting after the near-naked men in “Magic Mike”. The idea that movie was attended by scores of horny women was total bullshit.

Indeed, most girls and women go see movies because of characters, plot and story. They don’t respond strongly to visual stimuli that men do.

Women prefer their men to keep their clothes on, while men prefer their women with their clothes off. It’s just the way it is.

Keachick just happens to be the exception, assuming of course she is a woman.

594. RAMA - March 10, 2013

541. Sorry Trekkiegal but all secondary characters, male or female are NOT going to get layers of character building on them. If they are there to add something to the main character then it’s not gratuitous.

Even so, does all sexuality have to have immediate purpose in film? What if it’s a reflection of society or a display of the creator’s attitudes?

In most scifi film critiques, there is generally a criticism leveled at scifi in general for NOT reflecting sexual attitudes, that scifi is either totally gratuitous or totally avoids it, and is juvenile for doing so. I’m glad if JJ adds a little of that into the movies, because the tv shows had some of that too, at least TOS and STNG.

595. Johnny - March 10, 2013

583. ObsessiveStarTrekFan – March 9, 2013

@582. Johnny

No, I think he means that you can’t use the excuse that they did it back then to justifiy that it’s OK to do it now.

My point is… for all those people saying that this stuff “doesn’t belong in Star Trek”… well… there it is.

596. RAMA - March 10, 2013

596. Problem is there is no justification, no rationale to say that.

597. RAMA - March 10, 2013

i answered some other stuff but the post is missing…hmmm

598. Keachick - March 10, 2013

#326 – “To the writers/producers – I implore you NOT to delete/censor the sex scenes between the catwomen and Kirk. Indeed I would ask that you perhaps make additions to the scenes that give viewers an insight into who these characters are and hopefully show the respect and affection that may be part of Kirk’s own personal story. Thank you!”

I feel that I have explained my view in respect to the assertion that women are constantly objectified as mere sex objects for male gratification. I also noted further on that one of the main reasons why we learn so little about people like Kirk’s catwomen is because these scenes are cut short so that more time can be given to big battle scenes, fist fights, people flying off tall buildings, cities laid waste etc. It is a point that everybody here seems has to have missed, but it is an IMPORTANT one! Stories can be told in various ways…

I stand by my plea to you, Bob and co…

#593 – Yes, Keachick is a woman, a woman who has borne three children – been there, done that in the biological sense. Interesting that you should say that – “Women prefer their men to keep their clothes on, while men prefer their women with their clothes off. It’s just the way it is.” because the first poster here to allude to wanting to see a “shirtless Kirk” was Dee, a female. Not that there is anything wrong at all with what Dee said.

I think it is more accurate to say that both men and women like to see each other in a more or less unclothed state, depending on circumstances.

I also think that it is true to say that we all (male and female), whether we are gay or heterosexual, like to see a little of the genuine (unclothed) *deal*. Now that is just the way it is and probably always has been, except that women were not allowed to express that side of their inherent natures. In fact, for so long women weren’t allowed to express any interest in sex/sexuality at all. She was only allowed to see men in terms of whether he would make a good husband, ie good provider and father of her children. For her to be or express anything else would make her a *slut/whore*.

And no, dmduncan – war or the threat of war is no less boring than talking about supposedly taboo subjects like sex, tampons and condoms. Incidentally, I only mentioned condoms only in response to MJ’s derogatory quip about – next, we’ll see Uhura’s tampons type thing – when he put down the inclusion of a sex scene showing a young Kirk with two (cat) women.

Did you know that condoms have been around for about 3,000 years? The Egyptians invented them. Obviously, in the last 20/30 years, they have seen much improvement in terms of safety and ease of use, however they did indeed cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies occurring as well as the transmission of various STDs, including the HIV/AIDS virus. I frankly doubt that, 200+ years from now, that we won’t still see that remarkable little, non invasive, harmless but practical device being put into service in the Star Trek world. No doubt there will be modifications made, depending which species a human male may want to liaise with sexually, but that’s OK, too.

599. Red Dead Ryan - March 10, 2013

Anyway, most of us aren’t interested in seeing sex as part of “Star Trek”. Explosions, space battles, good guys killing bad guys (sometimes the other way around), humor, Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad debates, etc. all take priority.

600. Red Dead Ryan - March 10, 2013

“Star Trek” has never really depicted romance really well, in my opinion. There wasn’t much of it during TOS, and when there was, it was more to do with the story rather than the characters, though “City On The Edge Of Forever” has a real heart-breaking friendship/romance between Kirk and Edith Keeler. Then there was Miramanee, though Kirk’s love with her was born out of his amnesia as Kirok, so I’m not sure if that really counts.

The Troi/Riker romance was alright, the actors played it well, though in “Insurrection” it was a bit soap-opera-ish.

Worf/Jadzia was interesting, but I would bet they would have broken up eventually had she not been killed.

The Tom Paris/B’elanna Torres and the Trip Tucker/T’pol romances were okay.

I guess the one relationship that worked out best was the O’Briens’. That one seemed more realistic because the episodes that were centered around them explored the dynamics of their commonalities and differences that didn’t dumb down either of the characters, nor did it obsess over sex. They weren’t necessarily the best looking couple, so in a way, it made it more believable from a storytelling point of view.

601. MJ - March 10, 2013

@587 “there was no sex in star wars because star wars was marketed mostly to kids.”

Dude, were you actually around seeing the original SW movies between 1977 and 1983?

I don’t think you intended to LIE here, but your statement here is just plain IGNORANT. Star Wars war marketed at the time primarily for adults and teenagers, NOT kids.

I was there, and remember the marketing campaign.

602. MJ - March 10, 2013

“I guess the one relationship that worked out best was the O’Briens’. That one seemed more realistic because the episodes that were centered around them explored the dynamics of their commonalities and differences that didn’t dumb down either of the characters, nor did it obsess over sex. They weren’t necessarily the best looking couple, so in a way, it made it more believable from a storytelling point of view.”

Yea, exactly. That worked. Unlike the Kirk F-toy Frat-boy Ménage à trois with catwomen that Keachick and RAMA are practically begging Orci and JJ to keep in the movie.

603. Johnny - March 10, 2013

You people are under the impression that STID is going to “obsess over sex”. That’s ridiculous. Like I said, the scene in question is going to last all of a minute, and serves to establish Kirk’s wild streak and romantic immaturity.

By the end of the film, he’ll be an evolved character.

You’re saying that a character can’t have sex with random women in movies, because those scenes objectify those women? It’s absurd.

604. MJ - March 10, 2013

“You’re saying that a character can’t have sex with random women in movies, because those scenes objectify those women? It’s absurd.”

In a lot of “movies” in general, sure, put those scenes in if it fits in the context of those movies. In Star Trek movies, no thanks.

And I don’t think anyone else here was saying that these types of things can’t be in other movies. We are all talking about STID.

Nice try!

605. Baby - March 10, 2013

@601. MJ and @ 588. Curious Cadet

I see I am getting lots of bashing here for my star wars comment. I guess I did not put my words in the right way.

kids and tweens where the cash cow of the star wars franchise so they had to tone it down for kids.

In return of the jedi a lot of adult fans complained that the ewoks (who were very cute in my opinion) made the movie too childish.

This is the point I am making. star wars took their kids base very seriously after all they where the demographic that were buying all the toys.

Star trek was never ever marketed to kids.

star trek was strictly an adult show…..an adult show that a lot of kids and teens found boring and could not understand because of the science behind it

A kid or a teen can easily understand the concept of the force which is basically magic.

This is why Star Wars is 5x the bigger franchise that star trek is.

everybody and anybody can enjoy star wars….not everybody can enjoy star trek.

JJ is trying to change that. I understand completely when some trek fans say JJ is dumbing down star trek to make it more marketable or in other words to make it as lucrative as star wars.

606. Johnny - March 10, 2013

“In a lot of “movies” in general, sure, put those scenes in if it fits in the context of those movies. In Star Trek movies, no thanks.”

Oh, so not even if it fits the context of a Star Trek movie?

607. MJ - March 10, 2013

If the context of the script written here requires an implied group sex by Kirk, then, in my opinion, that is not Star Trek.

I don’t know who to be anymore clear than this?

Would I prefer this scene be deleted from the final cut? Yes

Can I mentally dismiss the scene as a throwaway grab for dollars from adolescent males and immature adults and still love this movie? Sure

608. MJ - March 10, 2013

@605. Thanks for explaining yourself further. OK, I can agree with that.

609. Curious Cadet - March 10, 2013

@605 Baby,
“This is the point I am making. star wars took their kids base very seriously after all they where the demographic that were buying all the toys.
Star trek was never ever marketed to kids. star trek was strictly an adult show…..an adult show that a lot of kids and teens found boring and could not understand because of the science behind it”

With all due respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Before Star Wars almost all 60s/70s theatrical sci-if was geared for adults (2001/Close Encounters). To prove this point Star Wars was rated PG.

Star Trek TMP on the other hand was rated G. Now why would they do that? Well they did it because by the time the cancelled TOS, kids were the only ones watching it. Moreover, kids are the after school audience that discovered Star Trek running in syndication. That’s why they made a frickin’ Saturday morning cartoon out of it!! Kids found it anything but boring. And there was no such thing as a tweener in the 60s & 70s … Kids did no have money like they do today to influence box office choices.

With Star Wars, Lucas was interested in emulating Spielberg’s success, who at that time was squarely an adult oriented filmmaker (jaws). Lucas had no idea what kind of success SW would have, much less that kids would embrace it so significantly. The trend toward kids did not happen until after The Empire Stimes back which was a decidedly dark and adult oriented movie. Leia on a leash tied to a lascivious villain!? Come on … That has no place in a kids movie!!

610. MJ - March 10, 2013

“Star Trek TMP on the other hand was rated G. Now why would they do that? Well they did it because by the time the cancelled TOS, kids were the only ones watching it. Moreover, kids are the after school audience that discovered Star Trek running in syndication. That’s why they made a frickin’ Saturday morning cartoon out of it!! Kids found it anything but boring. And there was no such thing as a tweener in the 60s & 70s … Kids did no have money like they do today to influence box office choices.”

Yep!!!

611. Johnny - March 10, 2013

@607 MG

“Can I mentally dismiss the scene as a throwaway grab for dollars from adolescent males and immature adults and still love this movie? Sure”

It would only be a cash grab if they show this scene in the trailers. You know, to actually get people to go see that scene. So far, they haven’t. It’s not a cash-grab if it’s not promoted. It’s not there to put adolescent males in the seats if they’re *already in the seats*.

612. Red Dead Ryan - March 10, 2013

I would argue that the original “Star Wars” trilogy wasn’t aimed at one specific demographic. George Lucas was telling the stories he dreamed of as a kid, inspired by “Flash Gordon” serials he watched growing up. He wanted to share his own imagination and sense of wonderment with the rest of the world. He understood that kids would be inspired by his movies, and that adults, who take their kids to the movies, would need to be entertained by strong storytelling while their kids would be enjoying the visual aspect of it. That is why Lucas licensed a lot of toy products to kids. He needed to appeal to their imaginations with cool-looking figures and ships.

It was the prequel trilogy that was aimed more at kids. Specifically, “The Phantom Menace”.

613. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 10, 2013

@611. Johnny

“It would only be a cash grab if they show this scene in the trailers. … It’s not there to put adolescent males in the seats if they’re *already in the seats*.”

Not necessarily so – this statement neglects to take into consideration the effect of word of mouth in promotion of a movie.

614. Curious Cadet - March 10, 2013

@612 Red Dead Ryan,
“That is why Lucas licensed a lot of toy products to kids.”

Again, I’m not sure where you’re getting this. Lucas was coming off of THX-1138 and American Graffiti — hardly children’s films. Yes he was inspired by Flash Gordon as he tried to secure the rights and remake it, but even the 1970s Flash Gordon film was geared toward adults. Indeed Lucas had to fight the perception by the crew that they were making just a children’s film, and thus they didn’t take it seriously and lacked enthusiasm.

Lucas had to beg people to put out Star Wars merchandise. Kenner was the only toy company who was even remotely interested. However, there were no toys released when Star Wars premiered, it took several months after the premiere before he first toys appeared, so much so that Kenner launched an “empty box” cupon promotion for Christmas to allow customers to be the first to redeem toys when they first became available in February of 1978!! There was absolutely NOTHING for kids besides T-shirts and posters (which is all FOX was interested in licensing), and the equivalent of an audio book (the kid’s storybook didn’t even come out until 1979). Marvel comics was nearly bankrupt in 1977 and gambled to publish Star Wars comics, not as a children’s comic, but for their usual teenage and adult clientele, and the success due to the dearth of merchandise available single handedly saved Marvel.

The result of the unexpected success of Star Wars, which Lucas bet Sielberg his Close Encounters would trounce at the box office, resulted in toy makers and children’s product licensees coming out of the woodwork. And thus Lucas began the prostitution of his franchise.

I don’t buy that Lucas ever set out to make a movie for kids, market a movie for kids, or develop a franchise for kids. He set out to tell a serious science fiction story, yes perhaps to appeal to a wide audience as Spielberg’s movies did, but the fact that kids became a huge market has everything to do with its popularity among that demographic and Lucas’ greed.

615. Red Dead Ryan - March 10, 2013

#614.

Dude, I said the original trilogy wasn’t aimed at one specific demographic.

I said it was partly aimed at kids.

616. MJ - March 10, 2013

I think a fair statement here that we could perhaps all agree on was as the trilogy progressed, there was more of a focus on marketing kids, whereas at the start, if was primarily targeted at adults and teenagers.

617. MJ - March 10, 2013

correction: “as the series of six movies progressed”

618. Johnny - March 10, 2013

@ 613. ObsessiveStarTrekFan

So you really think people are going to say, “Hey, go see Star Trek Into Darkness because Kirk has sex with two cat aliens in it”?

No, they will not.

619. Curious Cadet - March 10, 2013

@618 Johnny,

I’m thinking you don’t know any teenage boys, and have forgotten what it was like to be one yourself. And it’s probably been a while since you’ve hung out with your buddies at the pub.

620. Son of Jello - March 10, 2013

Sex with cats would be like sex on the beach. It sounds romantic but if you replaced sand with cat hair?. But maybe sex on the beach with a feline alien would work out cats with their rough tongues could clean up the whole mess. Maybe Kirks sleeping with two cat aliens is just him being practical you have sex and then get a tongue bath afterwards and your all fresh ready for work.

But realistically I think its just market research ST fans like cats and Cpt Kirk so they are in the movie.

621. K-7 - March 10, 2013

@618. Are you saying that for real?

Come on, it’s highly marketable to the teens and twenty-somethings. Get real!

622. Son of Jello - March 10, 2013

618 cats would go

623. Red Ded Ryan - March 10, 2013

#618.

What planet are you from?? Of course they will go! That’s who J.J Abrams is (partly, at least) marketing to!

Smarten up already!

Sheesh!

624. Son of Jello - March 11, 2013

Has anyone mentioned M’ress I pretty sure she was in some ST novels and pretty sure she was a feline alien.

My cat has been reading the post’s and is adamant that she is going to see STITD just to see Kirk do it with a kitty/kitty’s.

And where is all the biological arguments about interspecies breeding DNA compatibility etc or explaining what you would get when you cross Cpt Kirk with a Cat. Would he be as flexible as a cat and therefore eliminate any womanizing trouble in kirks descendants. Maybe its all a feminist plot to eliminate men like Kirk by breeding with them.

625. Baby - March 11, 2013

@curious cadet

the bottom line is that star wars has has more kids and tween fans than star trek.

And the tween fans are the cash cows.

626. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#594. RAMA

541. Sorry Trekkiegal but all secondary characters, male or female are NOT going to get layers of character building on them. If they are there to add something to the main character then it’s not gratuitous.

Then we are disagreed and shall remain as such. I’ve made my case quite clear, posting empirical evidence to support the common trend within modern film to objectify women, and even included a link to a paper from the American Psychological Association exploring the detrimental side-effect this trend has on the female psyche. I have not changed my stance, nor will I. As a woman, myself, and the mother of a teenage daughter, I refuse to be an apologist, and justify a scene (well, the description of a scene) I find questionable from a standards standpoint just because I am a Trekkie and the scene might/will/possibly exist in a Star Trek film.

Having said that I look forward to the rest of the film as it sounds quite intriguing.

627. Curious Cadet - March 11, 2013

@625 Baby,

Yes. Today Star Wars has more Kids and tween fans than Star Trek has traditionally attracted. It also has more of every age fan than Star Trek ever had.

I’ve actually now forgotten the original point, but suffice it to say, that’s the market that Abrams is now agressively persuing, seemingly at the expense of some of Star Trek’s core values — Introducing more sex, violence and sophomoric humor along with increased action and larger scale.

628. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#580 Johnny :

I was offline yesterday due to a migraine but it looks as if both Curious Cadet and ObsessiveStarTrekFan already replied, and with their usual, wonderful elloquence, with everything I would have said and said it better than I would have said it. So I’ll just say that I second their sentiments wholeheartedly and add only that one would hope that there would be some progress made towards not objectifying women in the 47 years (to put that into perspective, that’s nearly half a century) that have passed between the initial airing of TOS and now. Sadly this is not the case.

629. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

*eloquence

630. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#576 MJ:

Yea, if this scene goes forward, we are going to be hearing stupid Kirk-pussy jokes for the rest of our lives. Bank on that!

“Remember Star Trek Into Darkness — the one where Kirk really got all the pussy he could handle. Ha! Ha! Ha! Drool”

You know MJ, I hadn’t thought about that but you make a great point. In fact, I forsee my husband, who is not nearly as much of a Trekkie as I am, teasing relentlessly about it for months afterwards. I can already hear the quips for any future Trek film I try and take him to…

“So, dogs or horses this time?”

631. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

I know a bunch of you are from Southern California, as am I, anyone else feel the earthquake this morning?

632. Disinvited - March 11, 2013

#631. Trekkiegal63 – March 11, 2013

I did. A tiny foreshock that I recognized from experience (easily could have been dismissed as the wind) and then a bigger jolt.

633. Disinvited - March 11, 2013

In more earthshaking news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21714191

SkyNet is up and Robot is online to introduce two other film franchises into the mix.

634. Trekkiegal63 - March 11, 2013

#632 Disinvited:

Yes, I had a similar experience, though it took me a moment to discern whether my office building was shaking (there is construction being done on our building) or if it was an actual earthquake.

Apparently it wasn’t that big, 5.1 in Anza desert. Based on how it felt I thought it would be bigger.

635. Bob Mack - March 11, 2013

#620 – sex with cats sounds “romantic?”

636. Son of Jello - March 11, 2013

635 Yes that was a typo I meant feline aliens not cats. I thought that may have been obvious considering the topic.

637. submit to Montana directory - March 12, 2013

Very energetic blog, I enjoyed that bit. Will there be a
part 2?

638. Avi - March 14, 2013

I have the spoiler you all have been looking for, but afraid to actually realize it fearing it would ruin the movie.

Do you want to know?

Stop now or forever be spoiled!
—–












The Character John Harrison is a stolen Identity by this guy!











Stop now!










-Do you remember that black hole spock prime started?










Do you recall TOS episode 07 from season 1







By DC Fontana










-The Bad guy is————————————————-

Charlie Evans!!!!!!! (AKA Charlie X)

Don’t be so sad, I told you it may spoil your surprise.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.