Watch New Star Trek Into Darkness International Trailers [UPDATE 2] |
jump to navigation

Watch New Star Trek Into Darkness International Trailers [UPDATE 2] March 21, 2013

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Marketing/Promotion,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

The fourth trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness has just been released online. This new preview is Paramount’s "international trailer." You can watch the new trailer below. Of course as with all trailers there will be spoilers – so watch out. [UPDATE 2: UK YouTube version now embedded]


International Trailer(s) For Star Trek Into Darkness

UPDATE 2: We now have the video for the Star Trek Into Darkness international trailer (UK version) and have uploaded it to the TrekMovie YouTube channel. It is also embedded below.

Australian, German, Mexican, Russian, or Brazilian versions are available at Apple Trailers

The new trailer will be shown with international screening of G.I. Joe: Retaliation starting next week. Other countries will also get localized versions of this trailer for showings of the G.I. Joe movie but those are not part of tonight’s exclusive release on Apple trailers. TrekMovie has confirmed that US screenings of the G.I. Joe movie will include the ‘alternative teaser’ which was released with Oz The Great and Powerful. A longer domestic ‘theatrical trailer’ for Star Trek Into Darkness will be released some time in April. It isn’t clear now if there will be major differences between that domestic theatrical trailer and the new international trailer.

UPDATED: Get your shot-by-shot analysis

Want to dig deep and get all the spoilers in the trailer, then check out the shot-by-shot analysis, which also includes images from the different localized versions.


1. Matt - March 21, 2013

nice. can’t wait for it now. 8 weeks is going to be torture.

2. Daniel Broadway - March 21, 2013


3. thasc - March 21, 2013

So Harrison’s ship crashlands on Alcatraz…

4. FSJMusicMan - March 21, 2013

This sounds like fun.

5. Devon - March 21, 2013


6. JRT! - March 21, 2013

Looks ok. Looking forward to seeing it.

7. Dan - March 21, 2013

Top agent… hmm remind anyone of section 31?

8. somethoughts - March 21, 2013

Well Done, Bravo.

9. Darkthunder - March 21, 2013

FINALLY a glimpse of Peter Weller. No character name, but definitely part of Starfleet’s “top brass”. Robert April perhaps? Decker?

10. Ciaran - March 21, 2013


11. I'mPaul - March 21, 2013

1:36 into the UK clip, maybe all the clips I’m not sure yet = my very favorite moment.

12. Aix - March 21, 2013

Alice Eve and her random presence in trailers make me LOL! First the awkward screaming and now that shot @ 1:36. Haha.


13. T2 - March 21, 2013

Now that’s what I’m talking about!

14. Matt - March 21, 2013

who is John Harrison working for? that’s what i wanna know.

15. admrjosh2001 - March 21, 2013

It kinda looks like the Enterprise herself crashing.

16. Jamuga - March 21, 2013

Whoa, what a glimpse of Alice Eve! Definitely part of starfleet’s “top ass.”

17. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

ok, more detailed thoughts:

“you think your world is safe” speech one in brig. not surprising, but confirmed.

John Harrison is one of Starfleet’s “top agents” (section 31 connection?)

In Harrison’s eyes, Starfleet has committed “a crime I cannot forgive.” No idea what, but gives idea of motivations.

Carol Marcus giving Harrison disgusted look in sick bay (perhaps for killing/injuring her father?)

Carol Marcus appears to be in the scene here Harrison beats the crap out of Kirk

“I will walk over your cold corpses” definitely appears to be on an older-style starfleet bridge to me

Kirk (and someone else) flies out of an Enterprise-looking vessel. In another trailer they were flying TOWARD an Enterprise-looking vessel. veeeery interesting..

Carol Marcus in lingerie (!!)

I think we can confirm that it is Kirk’s Enterprise that crashes in the previous trailers. A much fuller view of the crash.

18. somethoughts - March 21, 2013


Peter Weller plays Admiral Marcus, Alice Eve’s dad

Top Agent, ala Osama 911

19. Themanle1 - March 21, 2013

Harrison did not set off bomb in London. Noel clarke did. Misdirecting again!!!!

20. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@9 darkthunder – I think it was already said Weller plays Admiral Marcus

21. pegasus - March 21, 2013

Looks more intelligent than I would have thought up to this point. Seems to be quite a nice political thriller coming together here… going to be lots of fun.

22. MJ - March 21, 2013



23. Televixen - March 21, 2013

Darkthunder- Peter Weller is playing Admiral Marcus. So, why do all the female characters have to be in their underwear in JJ Trek? First Uhura and the Orion. Now, Doctor Marcus. She’s a scientist for heaven’s sake! I hope there’s character development in there somewhere between the T&A.

24. Alan Morlock - March 21, 2013

Spoilers from a footage Screening:

Peter Weller is playing Admiral Marcus, formerly Robert April’s first oficer (as per the comic tie in) and father of Carol Marcus.

25. Ryan Allen Carrillo - March 21, 2013

I love it! Can’t wait!

26. Total-Trekkie2 - March 21, 2013

@ 19 He did so on Harrison’s orders in return for saving his daughter. Therefore it was Harrison who was behind the attack in London, even if he wan’t the one who physically pressed the button.

27. Devon - March 21, 2013

“Now, Doctor Marcus. She’s a scientist for heaven’s sake!”

Exactly. Scientists don’t wear underwear! Gosh, Roddenberry is rolling in his grave for not making them nude.

28. TheWrathOfBong - March 21, 2013

The Starfleet staff unis (like Adm. Marcus) remind me a bit of the TMP unis. Clearly this means John Harrison is V’ger.

29. Robert - March 21, 2013

When the Enterprise comes crashing to Earth, I actually quoted Data for a second when the Enterprise was crashing in Generations, “Oh Shit”.

30. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@27 no, no. the inclusion of behind the scenes photos from star trek 4 on the app clearly indicate that John Harrison is the whale probe!

31. Total-Trekkie2 - March 21, 2013

If Harrison was section 31, he would have been disavowed as working for Starfleet because 31 doesn’t officially exist. Still, it would be great if he was 31.

32. somethoughts - March 21, 2013

1:36 yammy!

Departed in space, can’t wait!

33. John - March 21, 2013

“Your cold corpses.” over expressed mouth movement. :p

Blatant showing of Alice Eve in her undies, to get the boys aroused so they will see this.

Revenge Revenge Revenge! Wow in the future we are still on that bandwagon as a species. :(

34. Trek in a Cafe - March 21, 2013

When the Enterprise crashes into SF, someone is playing Skrillex on the outside speakers. That is why everyone is screaming.

35. Televixen - March 21, 2013

The helicopter attack seemed very out of place to me. So much of this film seems to take place on Earth and not space. I think I can like this movie if I just accept it as another summer action flick and not Trek. The grey uniforms are pretty sweet and I love me some Peter Weller, even though it looks like he’s going to die early in the film.

36. MJ - March 21, 2013

This is the first trailer for STID that surpasses the iconic trailer for Trek 2009.

37. somethoughts - March 21, 2013


Sex sells, they are aiming for a big score internationally, maybe after they see it, they get star trek.

38. Trek in a Cafe - March 21, 2013

Wait, it’s not April, it’s a de-aged Archer coming to get Scotty for screwing up the Beagle in the transporter.

39. Dan - March 21, 2013

Wow the future sucks, terror attacks still exist! :(

Anyone else getting sick and tired of these films about terror attacks (911).

40. mikejohnson - March 21, 2013

@ 38

Unless he IS the beagle.



Epic trailer.

41. Geodesic17 - March 21, 2013

I am wondering if the trailer music is a version of Lux Aeterna.

42. Devon - March 21, 2013

“The helicopter attack seemed very out of place to me. So much of this film seems to take place on Earth and not space. I think I can like this movie if I just accept it as another summer action flick and not Trek” Helicopter Attack? You think it’s a Helicopter???? Really???

Some people, I swear.

43. Red Dead Ryan - March 21, 2013



This movie is going to be EPIC!!!

44. Joe - March 21, 2013

“how is this OUR Darkest Hour? would it be theirs?” no offense but most of us are going to be dead in 2259.

45. The Quickening - March 21, 2013

From the standpoint of past TREK movies, it looks good; you can see money was spent on it. But, it all looks and feels pretty standard and generic. Not trying to be negative, just honest. Hope it does well.

46. Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay) - March 21, 2013

Anyone complaining about the undies scene for Eve must be omitting from their memory episodes of the Original Series such as The Gamesters of Triskelion and several others…. 1 million Quatlos for Carol Marcus!!!

47. Clark - March 21, 2013

That isn’t the Enterprise crashing into the water.
1) Rectangular nacelles
2) Secondary hull appears to hug the saucer
3) The Enterprise is shown crashing with the front of its right nacelle destroyed and its deflector dish completely blown off. On the close up of Alcatraz, the ship still has a lit up blue nacelle

I’m guessing that Harrison gets ahold of another starfleet ship. The Enterprise is beat up and the transporters are down. Kirk and perhaps Spock space jettison over to the Harrison’s ship. This might take place in orbit of Earth’s moon after a battle between the Enterprise and Harrison’s ship.

Whatever they attempt must go wrong, because later on the Enterprise is crashing and Kirk is back on the Enterprise with Scotty hanging on for dear life as the ship falls from orbit.

48. Aix - March 21, 2013

@38 But isn’t that the point? That we are never going to have that sort of utopian society we dream of? That it is just us being romantic and idealistic?

49. Devon - March 21, 2013

The telling part of the trailer….

“Your commanders have committed a crime I can not forgive.”

So obviously there’s something hush hush within Starfleet that Harrison is not too happy about.

50. Captain Dan - March 21, 2013

Still not convinced the ship we’ve been seeing in all the trailer’s up to this one is/was the Enterprise. While it definitely looks like the Enterprise will crash, that one we’ve been seeing all this time still has a different configuration.

There is one scene in this trailer (edited between the shots of the ‘other’ ship) where we see what looks like the Enterprise deflector hitting land though… I hope we don’t lose her.

On another note, Hello Alice Eve!

51. Sarah - March 21, 2013

Why does Carol Marcus have to be almost naked? To bad she can’t be taken seriously as a character without having to take her clothes of to give boys erections. Are we that dumb as a species that good entertainment has to objectify women like this to seem marketable? I hope we as a species can get past objectifying women. We want Star Trek to include, interracial love, gay rights, now I suggest no longer objectify women. Star Trek is the trend towards change!

52. Clark - March 21, 2013

*3) Correction. I meant the ship hitting Alcatraz still has a lit up blue deflector dish. Earlier, you see the Enterprise crashing with its deflector completely blown off. From the earlier space jettison scene, the Enterprise’s deflector is powered down and has a chunk blown off of it.

53. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

There appears to be a slight edit in the MX version. Instead of Marcus looking at Harrison, it looks like we get a brief shot of Uhura. But that’s it for that one. still seeing if there are any other minor edits…

54. AliceEvesUndies - March 21, 2013

Most people I know didn’t even know that this movie is coming out or was even being made, ya know?

55. Aix - March 21, 2013

Ooooh! Star Trek into Darkness is trending on Twitter worldwide! :D

56. Michael Hall - March 21, 2013

Pretty impressive I must say, if only in its sense of scale. If nothing else, this may well be among the most elaborate “future earths” (if not the one imagined by Gene Roddenberry) ever put on film. Considering that all TOS ever showed was that one brief scene in “The Cage,” who would’ve ever believed it would come to this?

57. Trek in a Cafe - March 21, 2013

Insurrection: Starfleet Admiral gone bad

Nemesis: Picard Clone leads fascist plot by slaves to overthrow fascist government that somehow has to be replaced at end of film

Star Trek: baby revenges man who killed his father

Into Darkness: Guy pissed he can’t get Big Gulp in NYC, tells everyone he’s bringing his own to theater, but caught on the way in. Returns with a sip straw but asked where baby is. So angry. So, so angry. Studies meditation for so long he becomes super fit and thin. Does not need Big Gulp. Is Thankful.

58. Adam C - March 21, 2013

– god damn klingons
– robocop
– skin
– r2d2 is piloting the enterprise

59. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

Russian edit contains a couple different scenes too. One is a short clip of Harrison beating the crap out of Kirk. Other is, instead of Marcus and Harrison in sick bay, it’s Chekov running through engineering.

60. Janice - March 21, 2013

Majel Barrett was against all the overly sexualized female co stars in the last Star Trek shows. I’m so glad J.J. has kept Alice Eve’s clothes on…oh wait!

61. Adam C - March 21, 2013

“starfleet is not about vendetta kirk” “maybe it should be sir” :gasp:

62. Adam C - March 21, 2013

Carol in her undies

63. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

German trailer has same scene of Chekov PLUS a new view of Spock looking down at something, probably at Harrison during chase scene right after he jumped off the barge.

64. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 21, 2013

… and the Russian one also has Chekov and (I think) an extra one of Spock.

I’ve watched them all and not can’t keep them straight in my head. Why isn’t it May already?

65. What gives? - March 21, 2013

What’s with the negative reaction to underpants? We saw Kirk in his undies. There isn’t anything in the trailer or previous film that you wouldn’t see at a beach.

66. Devon - March 21, 2013

#60 – “Majel Barrett was against all the overly sexualized female co stars in the last Star Trek shows” While her husband wanted a “nude paradise” for Earth. S*** happens.

67. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

Brazilian trailer (last one I think) has Chekov edit plus one of Uhura looking back into a shuttle from the pilot’s seat, probably during the scene when Spock goes down into the volcano

68. OldGeezer - March 21, 2013

For all you perverted bastards out there.

69. Televixen - March 21, 2013

Sarah & Janice–
It’s just been done to death. There’s zero originality in showing her in bra & panties. And yes, we all know TOS had lots of skin and sexy ladies, but there were also strong women too. I’m so tired of the women on the crew having to fall for some guy and masquerading that as character development. Alive Eve has obvious assets that the mainstream audience will appreciate, but she is a scientist and presumebly has more to offer than her body. I just feel like the science is missing from my science fiction. I also feel like the stars are missing from Star Trek. I will give the movie a chance, but I have to look at it as just another popcorn flick and not Trek. And this is coming from someone who liked the first one.

70. Skulltrail - March 21, 2013

Did anyone notice the URL at the display when we look over undressed Carol to Kirk?! or somewhat!

71. Jim Phelps - March 21, 2013

@47 Clark

You are correct. It is not the Enterprise crashing into the bay. I freeze framed it. It does have different nacelle pylons and the lit blue deflector seems to be recessed into the hull like The Motion Picture Enterprise.

72. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 21, 2013

@60 Janice

Majel DID play Lwaxana, you know. The Phase, mud bath, nude wedding ceremony, umax…

73. JohnRambo - March 21, 2013

i love how they AGAIN fool everyone with the enterprise crashing into the water lol

it’s Harrisons ship:-)

74. Rachel - March 21, 2013

Alice Eve = TNA

Thank you J.J. for picking an overly attractive woman and then having her take her clothes off. I wasn’t able to take her seriously until you did that!

75. Trek in a Cafe - March 21, 2013

68. Yes. Not only is there less science there is less fiction.

Imagine a sexy scene in a film set in our time. Like Zero Dark Thirty. A woman would not be wearing underwear from the past unless she’s really into “Victorian” wear. Especially if she’s hunting OBL.

So, indeed: women in 23xx will not be wearing Victoria’s Secret unless it’s Halloween.

Also, no one is on rollerblades at Starfleet headquarters. What gives?

76. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@69 wow nice catch. It looks like to me. maybe i should download the 1080p… lol

77. Steve Johnson - March 21, 2013

@65, it’s not the amount of skin. It’s the apparent reasoning and attitude for it. Just to attract children. It’s perceived as juvenile.

Some of the trailer impresses upon me the idea that this will be a truly character driven story. One of my biggest gripes with first film was that it felt like the characters weren’t -really- making choices. That action set pieces were demanded by the plot, and the characters would bend over backwards to get to those set pieces. This time, at least according to the trailers, there’s a sense of some really good characterization.

Interestingly, I think this film may have tapped into TWOK in more of a spiritual way than the literal one so many people were expecting. Themes of revenge, hate, rage, justice, coming of age.

Also, i’m betting we’re going to see a really nasty fire-fight between these two star ships in the JJ universe. Which, not to sound like a five year old will be “totally rad.” The kinetic feel of the action in the JJ universe lends itself very nicely to things blowing up in space. One of the better action scenes of the first film was The Kelvin exchanging shots with The Narada.

78. Janice - March 21, 2013

@ObsessiveStarTrekFan, she did, even towards the end she probably thought such depictions were outdated. Maybe at the end of her life she realized women should be depicted that way. As Sarah #51 said, “Star Trek is the trend towards change!”

79. semander - March 21, 2013

Its – but it redirects to a black page (into darkness…)

80. MJ - March 21, 2013

“We want Star Trek to include, interracial love, gay rights, now I suggest no longer objectify women. Star Trek is the trend towards change!”

How about just a good Star Trek and science fiction story. That’s what I want.

81. Janice - March 21, 2013

correction* women shouldn’t be depicted that way

82. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

A new kick ass trailer comes out and people are obsessed with a two second clip of someone in their panties *headdesk*

83. I wanna sex you up - March 21, 2013

I’m sorry that some of you have such a negative attitude towards physically attractive women. Jealous? I’m sure that the character has the same personality traits as in Wrath of Khan. Regardless, there is nothing intellectual or feminist about being ashamed of bathing suits on men or women in movies — even sci-fi.

84. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@78 it goes to a page with a new poster on it for me

85. Sarah - March 21, 2013

Thank you Janice, I too am sick of women being depicted as sex objects, we are more than that. Why can’t there be women in these films that are attractive instead of overly attractive. There’s plenty of men in films that are attractive. Not all of them look like Adonis’s, which in my opinion is the opposite of all these women. It looks like Star Trek is still the boys club.

86. semander - March 21, 2013

@83: Thanks, now its loading. Maybe the international one? :)

87. TheWrathOfBong - March 21, 2013

@83 Or it could be the link just wasn’t quite live yet. 1:08 am, dontchaknow.

88. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

For all we know, Marcus is changing, Kirk looks back, and she beats the sh*t out of him for it..while still in just underwear…

89. TheWrathOfBong - March 21, 2013

The Russian trailer has no URL–it says Low Clearance instead.

90. Man abs - March 21, 2013

@87 Seriously. Why soapbox an issue over 2 seconds of footage with no context?

91. Trek in a Cafe - March 21, 2013

82.and others who don’t get why that shot need not be in the trailer.

If you were watching a sci fi movie set in the future, why in hell would you want to watch a woman or a man for that matter, wearing underware that is 300 years old?

Because the takeaway now is that she’s in her undies, and we “get” to see her body. The takeaway in the final film is “She’s wearing my future grandma’s underware!”

Of course EVERYONE in this movie is hot. Probably some of the ugly people in this film are hot.

Are her undies related to another deep rooted antagonism I have to an Earth-centered Star Trek film?

Good old Star Trek was always about getting to understand something about and not just objectifying aliens. This movie, being Prime Directive-related and seems like it is going to be about reproducing the very sad and destructive attitudes and history about “white men” coming to save the natives.

92. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@88 – its below that sign. though link goes to AU site so it might be different/missing on other versions…

93. Rachel - March 21, 2013

@ I wanna sex you up It’s not that us ladies are against attractive women it’s that we are depicted as sex objects all the time. Most women don’t look like Alice Eve. Most men want Alice Eve’s type through entertainment mediums. We just wish a more realistic natural woman was depicted. So maybe all you men can accept us for what we look like. The young perfect women depicted in the entertainment mediums doesn’t help the stigma that all of us women have to look like Alice or stay young and thin, and be genetically perfect like her to be attractive. Men don’t have such burdens!

94. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@88 nevermind. i see what you mean. says low clearance in Mexican one too

95. man abs - March 21, 2013

I don’t see anyone soapboxing that Kirk isn’t chubby enough.

96. Sarah - March 21, 2013

Man abs it’s time to do so. The world must change, and why not start now, even because of 2 seconds of footage. It’s time you men stopped looking at us the way you do. Gay marriage is making head way. I say this should be the next step in societal evolution. It’s time for men to grow up!

97. Jim Phelps - March 21, 2013

I freeze framed Harrison fighting in that hallway after Weller says “He is one of our top agents”. It looked like he and Sulu were engaged in hand to hand combat.

98. Calastir - March 21, 2013

I wanted to like this.

And I hear the names of my favorite characters.

But honestly, this is not really Star Trek.

It feels nothing like it, just another modern generic ‘edgy’ sci-fi flick with a famous brand slapped onto it.

99. man abs - March 21, 2013

I’d like to think that the obesity epidemic is solved in our future.

100. Rachel - March 21, 2013

@94 Man abs he’s not wearing only his manties like Alice is only wearing her undies. IT’s not only just her weight I was mentioning. It’s unfortunate that’s the only thing you took away from my last post.

101. TheWrathOfBong - March 21, 2013

@92 “Most men want Alice Eve’s type through entertainment mediums.”

Setting aside the generalization for a moment…

You’ve got that reversed. Men don’t like “young perfect women” because that’s what they see in entertainment and media; young perfect women are chosen for entertainment and media because that’s what men like.

102. Rachel - March 21, 2013

@ 98 man abs no one mentioned obesity.

103. man abs - March 21, 2013

I actually didn’t think much of the scene nor am I listing over the character. My take away is that you are all overreacting.

104. Ryan Allen Carrillo - March 21, 2013

I don’t know why everyone is screaming about Doctor Marcus in her underwear. So what! Chris Pine was in his underwear in the first movie. Newsflash he is hot too! They are all hot! There are no fat people in the future. Its a movie people!

105. Rachel - March 21, 2013

@100 TheWrathOfBong That’s not true. Throughout history men liked women with more weight, or as in the Forties and Fifties men liked women that had some weight on them and that were buxom. It was Twiggy that changed everything through advertising/media.

106. Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay) - March 21, 2013

#90…. I think you and others may be reading into and over analyzing a bit. First of all Star Trek is an entertainment property with the sole purpose of entertaining and earning money for Paramount. Secondly if you really want to examine Trek closely some of the best episodes and films are ones where Earth itself featured prominently in the plot I am immediately reminded of of DS9’s Homefront and The Voyage Home. As for 300 year old undies… When sci-fi movies go out of their way to look overly futuristic in every single tiny aspect it can have less than desirable results (I am remembering the neon green plastic symbols in Nemesis.)

As far as the objectification of women. Well men are heavily objectified as well. For that matter our society is hot for objectification on every front. As for the clip it kinda looks like they are forced to change in close quarters, a shuttle my guess, and from the look of Kirks arm I am guessing he was polite and turned around to give her privacy. Kind of like the Doctor not “peeking” in the TOS shore leave.

Freud said “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…” and while I agree with whatever argument you may post about Freud being a hack I have to postulate… Sometimes undies are just undies… 300 years in the future or not.

107. Rachel - March 21, 2013

Audrey Hepburn didn’t help. ;)

108. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

this entire comment section is approaching being one giant pile of fail…

I miss the debates about Khan…

109. Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay) - March 21, 2013

I love that I post a thoughtful and organized comment and it is deleted out of turn. What gives?

110. Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay) - March 21, 2013

And then it re-appears lol.


111. Man abs - March 21, 2013

What was the deal with Khan’s chest? How are we supposed to live up to those expectations.

112. Jack - March 21, 2013

Okay — these finally make me want to see the thing. I have a sense of the basic setup.

That Eve in a bikini scene looks very odd. She looks like either Sheilds or Yarnell.

113. I'mPaul - March 21, 2013

What’s wrong with seeing a beautiful woman in her underwear and appreciating it? She looked gorgeous right there and I’m having a feeling she might become my favorite part of the film. I am completely unapologetic about that. It’s biology. Men are supposed to appreciate the female form.

And something tells me she would probably appreciate being appreciated in that way considering that she probably worked very hard for said form.

And considering there’s no context behind the few frames we saw of the scene in question CHILLYAX. Don’t freak out until there’s something to freak out about.

114. Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay) - March 21, 2013

@ 109 LOL … For real. I actually laughed.

115. Sarah - March 21, 2013

@102 man abs As a man you can’t see it. You are not a woman. The shoe is not on the other foot.

Here’s another thing. Star Trek has constantly appealed to the intellectual, with all the science and creative writing. Personally that’s what is missing from this J.J. universe. It now appeals to the lowest common denominator.

116. Tarrax - March 21, 2013


47. That isn’t the Enterprise crashing into the water.
1) Rectangular nacelles
2) Secondary hull appears to hug the saucer
3) The Enterprise is shown crashing with the front of its right nacelle destroyed and its deflector dish completely blown off. On the close up of Alcatraz, the ship still has a lit up blue nacelle

I never had any doubt from the first trailer as the Nacelles are way to far apart for it to be Kirk’s Enterprise. I have a model right in front of me. ;)

117. Thomas - March 21, 2013

99. Rachel

Kirk got down to his skivvies in the last movie, and there were female fans who got their jollies from it (read enough of Keachick’s posts and Pine’s dreaminess will eventually come up).

I’m not going to say that Alice Eve in her underwear is right or wrong, but I think there are some things to consider:
1. Like it or not, there has always been a sexual element to Trek. Sometimes it could be subtle (as in the case of Ilia from TMP who had to mention her oath of celibacy when it had zero bearing on the plot), or blatant (the score of scanty costumes worn by the Alien Woman of the Week). If you going to get mad at J.J. for keeping this trend going, you should also be mad at Roddenberry for starting it in the first place.
2. Having become more familiar with her previous work, I can tell you that Alice Eve has demonstrated a clear willingness to disrobe on screen. As such, it probably did not take much coaxing if any for her to do this scene. She could’ve said that she didn’t want to do it, but she went along with it.

118. Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay) - March 21, 2013

@ 113 Sarah — Sadly the lowest common denominator is money and it is what makes the world go round.

Secondly just a thought. I am a 250 man who is 6 foot 2… I am not physically like any of the men in Trek save maybe Jimmy Doohan. I don’t get upset when seeing them in undies like Kirk in 09 or several other scenes from series. I just enjoy the program for what it is. Good entertainment.

BTW why do people keep bringing up gay rights? No one downed that in the trailer did they???

119. Man abs - March 21, 2013

I wouldn’t make sweeping judgments off of 1 movie and some trailers. The JJ Verse is only movies, so you can’t logically compare it to any random sample from the 45+ years of Trek.

Looking forward to seeing this one. Needs more attractive women though; blondes aren’t my type. Maybe there will be a few Klingon women to appeal to my male gaze.

120. Rachel - March 21, 2013

110. I’mPaul “It’s biology. Men are supposed to appreciate the female form.”

I just don’t see mens current appreciation of the female form as being respectful. It’s has to stop, with women being depicted as an object. Holly wood is behind the times in my opinion. Also their obsession in selling fighting and war. All of this is men going off to war and their prize is the princess they get to sleep with at the end of the story.

121. JohnRambo - March 21, 2013


very good:-)

122. Trek in a Cafe - March 21, 2013

I am not afraid to say that I like objectified images of women. Absolutely and for sure. But a lot of work went into creating this image. An actress had to be auditioned — and she had to sign a contract that included that she would be seen this way.

So, possessing and using this two second image must have been a motivation on the part of the producers.

What purpose does the image have in the film? Who is going to bet that Alice Eve uncovered has very little to do with the plot of the film — but everything with this trailer? In other words, I believe this image in this scene was shot specifically because it could or would absolutely be used in the trailer. It’s even possible that the contract stipulated that the image not be used until there were “worldwide” trailers, thus upping the value of the image and the bankability of Alice Eve’s future projects.

Using that image is a calculation which shows how desperate Paramount must be to get eyeballs on this trailer before word-of-mouth can build. Sadly so out place. Absolutely not sexy. Carol actually has a WTF look on her face. Her body is awkward and uncomfortable. No one else in the trailer seems uncomfortable in such a private way.

So these producers are making a sexist (not sexy, and not sexually themed) objectification as integral into their marketing as the special effects.

I love Star Trek too much not be a little upset at this. Go ahead, blow up Vulcan — change the entire dynamic of the relationship of humans to their universe.

But fanning sexist attitudes for cold hard cash degrades Star Trek. That is not what fans understand the humanist qualities of Star Trek to be. And it tips the scale just a little bit further in the wrong direction.

Of course we’ll see the film and find out. But smart people now will go into the film wondering if they are being used also.

123. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 21, 2013

Is it just my imagination, or have they fixed the UK flag to be the right way up this time?

124. Rachel - March 21, 2013

@ 114. Thomas, Keachick is an immature pretty girl in love with love and pretty boys who hasn’t grown up yet. Young good looks fade, then what is left for a woman if that’s all she focussed on as an identity?

125. SpudUk - March 21, 2013

I don’t see how a 2 second shot of Alice Eve in her underwear is objectifying women. To me it looked like she was getting changed, as Kirk was, possibly for the space jump sequence seen in the trailers. Hard to get changed without being in your underwear, surely?

I didn’t see everyone complaining about objectification when Kirk was in his underwear in ST09?

Female empowerment is NOT about keeping them covered up. The ultimate form of female expression is rejecting Victorian conventions and being comfortable with, and showing, your body. This new wave feminism seems to fighting hard against early feminism that fought hard against these Victorian sensibilities and enable women to express themselves and be proud of the female form.

On the “underwear” issues itself, they don’t look especially modern, they look timeless. As a historian, if you look at underwear from across history they don’t differ too much to now. I think this is probably a much more accurate portrayal of underwear as well be, not some neon green pants with wings and hops, fitted with LEDs and mini cameras? Seems to be some odd arguments coming from this.

My favourite quote so far? “Good old Star Trek was always about getting to understand something about and not just objectifying aliens” – REALLY?! Kirk didn’t go around objectifying aliens? Roddenberry didn’t sit back and think “oh, I’ll invited green, scantily glad slave girls, that’ll help not to objectify them.”

All in all, I think this looks great, and taking 2 second of footage way out of context, then attempting to apply some new wave feminist agenda to it is a little disingenuous! I’m all for equality, female empowerment and an end to objectification, not convinced this is it though…

126. Tarrax - March 21, 2013

I will say Alice Eve is in a strange pose in that scene. It’s like she hawking wares at a market. There’s just no sensuality to it. Maybe with a figure like that, it’s not required. Heh.

127. Anthony Pascale - March 21, 2013

I am now looking for differences with nonUK versions

128. Josh C. - March 21, 2013

@119 “Carol actually has a WTF look on her face. Her body is awkward and uncomfortable.”

well gee wiz, if you were a woman who was changing, and the guy in the shuttlecraft with you turned to look, you might have a WTF look on your face and be awkward as well.

Personally, I get the feeling the scene is probably a humorous scene between Kirk and Carol.

The claim that they shot this scene for the sole purpose of being in the trailer, to me, is beyond silly

129. TheWrathOfBong - March 21, 2013


Societal norms change over time, and media generally reflects that. But by your logic, if every movie and ad started featuring 400-pound women with hairy backs, men would start liking that instead.

Further, the ideal woman isn’t universal; some people (myself included) still prefer curvier women. Look at Christina Hendricks’ success–she is much more in the vein of the 40s-50s ideal, and yet has still become a sex symbol.

When Twiggy came out, men didn’t say, “Well, I wouldn’t have thought she was hot before, but now that she’s in ads, she’s perfect!” If men didn’t find her attractive, she wouldn’t have been successful as a model. Rather, Twiggy’s success was due in large part to shifting societal norms.

Not to say media plays NO role. Certainly the abundance of “10s” in media can shift men’s expectations; where they might otherwise see such women as ideal but rare, the constant exposure can cause them to hold all women to those standards, and that’s not good.

However, to just say that men like these kinds of women because they’re in the media is at best a gross oversimplification.

130. Jack - March 21, 2013

This might be old news, but I checked out IMDB — and a Nibirean (so?) elder is being played by an actor named Gary-7.

Pretty elaborate for an in-joke ;).

131. Boy - March 21, 2013

Alice Eve in her bra and panties?

So why can’t we see Kirk in his boxers or briefs?

Was he not in bed with two catwomen?

Thanks JJ.

132. Tarrax - March 21, 2013

128. That makes more sense. Thanks. ;)

133. Lone Browncoat - March 21, 2013

…and the one that emerges from the water has short stubby pylons, nacelles that are TOS-like and is cigar-shaped.

Though I saw no glowing eyes, in the early days of speculation, if it wasn’t going to be Gary Mitchell, what about the possibility of it being a survivor of the U.S.S. Valiant? It hit the barrier long before Nero interrupted the time line. Alas, no….for if it was, Harrison probably would have been advanced enough in power not to need a starship[aka STV].
Instead, a new character with his own grudge against ‘civilization’ and/or the UFP. So we’re simply are going to have to wait to see where this antagonist’s motivation stems from, what happened to make him so pissed.
I don’t think he has any relation to William B. Harrison who died[or is supposed to die] on the “Roman Empire” world.

Either way, I can’t wait and hope I can get a good seat. :)

134. Lone Browncoat - March 21, 2013

ack! my previous post was supposed to be a continuation of #116s comment.

& I hate Apple, I’m not going to install that junk on my machine…
I went to the various flavours of YouTube to watch the trailers.

{an old Atari ST/TT/Falcon user}

135. Lurker - March 21, 2013

It’s a good thing that the first Star Trek movie – which was overseen by Gene Roddenberry – didn’t have some young, beautiful woman walking around in high heels and a extremely short bathrobe to show off her gorgeous legs in it.

Oh wait…

136. JohnRambo - March 21, 2013



137. Dee - lvs moon surface - March 21, 2013

My international……………………………… WOW!!!

;-) :-)

138. crazydaystrom - March 21, 2013

This morn, Alice Eve!

And oh yeah, I think there was some other stuff that looked interesting. I’ll have to watch it again.

139. Exverlobter - March 21, 2013

“Why does Carol Marcus have to be almost naked?”

Nothing new. Uhura was almost naked in the 2009 film as well.
Oh and remeber Jolene Blalock in Enterprise. We even saw her bare butt.
And in the TOS-series, well those girls also were mostly never dressed appropriate either.

140. Exverlobter - March 21, 2013

“Majel Barrett was against all the overly sexualized female co stars in the last Star Trek shows.”

Has Majel Barret seen her own show? THose skirts were so small you could sometimes even see the knickers if a girl was lying on a bed or sitting on a chair or kneeling on the ground.

141. crazydaystrom - March 21, 2013

Ok watched it a second time. Cumberbatch IS menacing! Wow!
And Alice Eve! I’ve heard of ‘come hither’ looks but that was a ‘come impregnate me pose’ (my interpretation). ;-)

This movie’s going to be great in IMAX!

142. The Professor - March 21, 2013

Wow! Wow! Wow!

143. HomerT6 - March 21, 2013

My theory that I came up with after watching all of them is that John Harrison is possibly a Augment based on him saying “I am better at everything” (words added together that were separated in the trailers) and he is the son of April. Or another theory is that he is in fact Khan under an assumed name was found by Starfleet and used him as a undercover operative.

144. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 21, 2013

@141. crazydaystrom

I have to disagree with your interpretation. The look I saw was a “What the heck are you staring at? Haven’t you ever seen a female body before? What are you – 10 years old?”

145. crazydaystrom - March 21, 2013

144. ObsessiveStarTrekFan-
“I have to disagree with your interpretation. The look I saw was a “What the heck are you staring at? Haven’t you ever seen a female body before? What are you – 10 years old?””

In truth, my interpretation as well. That was just my attempt at a bad joke, which is my wont.

146. Psb2009 - March 21, 2013

As a father of 2 teenage girls who want to pursue education and careers in the sciences, I agree completely with all the posts about the Alice Eve shot and Star Trek being better than that. Yes, some past Treks are full of this kind of sexism, but they should always move forward. I can only hope that it is only pandering marketing, and in context it will be better than it seems.

On the plus side, a story about terrorism and threats from within may make this the most topical and relevant Trek in a long time. Who cares what the nacelles or engineering look like if the story has meaning.

147. Nony - March 21, 2013

I laugh at every Harrison line. I’m sorry. I can’t help it. It’s just so cliched “deadly serious villain catchphrase voice.” I have seen nothing of Cumberbatch so far that particularly interests me.

Getting concerned about Chekov. Is he hiding somewhere safe? :(

And there’s that good ol’ film theory Objectifying Gaze again! Before I started the trailer, I said to myself, “there will be a full-body shot of one of the women in scanty clothing,” and there was! NO WAY! Except…duh. I’m always sad when I remember that Trek should be above that kind of obvious sexist ploy, but can’t be because that’s how marketing works.

148. hawkeye - March 21, 2013

The ship crashing into the bay looks like the NX-01 refit.

149. miketen - March 21, 2013

The music was great, especially in the second half of the trailer. Hopefully this is in the movie. A good soundtrack will make a movie and I really got tired of TNG movies recycling TOS movie soundtracks.

150. Scotty1701 - March 21, 2013

“Won’t fit?” Thinking “Independence Day,” perhaps? Was looking for Will Smith…

151. Newman - March 21, 2013

So Revenge?

Never seen that before in a movie.
How innovative.

Wonder what JJs Star Wars VII will be about.
Let me guess: Revenge of the Empire.

152. BatlethInTheGroin - March 21, 2013

#151: You DO realize Abrams doesn’t WRITE these films… don’t you?

153. BatlethInTheGroin - March 21, 2013

#147: Star Trek has NEVER been above playing up sex appeal. It’s been doing that since the very first pilot. Scantily clad women and Star Trek have gone hand in hand since 1965, when The Cage was produced.

154. BatlethInTheGroin - March 21, 2013

#141: Not at all. She gave him a “What are YOU looking at? Haven’t you ever seen a woman before??” look. She was showing annoyance that he was staring at her instead of being a professional.

155. Kirk's Soiled Shorts - March 21, 2013

This movie looks like total crap.

156. Newman - March 21, 2013


Yes I know.
It just was a cynical joke to make a point.

I am just disappointed.

On HBO and Showtime and other TV channels you have TV shows with big budget & great stories.

But in cinema the big blockbuster (not only Star Trek) movies get worse and worse. Nowadays good stories you only find in low budget movies.
And I am not expecting Shakespeare! I am not expecting a work of geniouses.

But this looks soooo damn predictable and generic.

I would at least expect something new, something I have not seen before.
But this looks like a mesh up of bad 2000er cliches and storyarcs you already have seen in the last 10 years 10000 of times.

Story: Old. Special Effects: New

This Star Trek movie seems to be made for people without brain. Unfortunately I was born with at least a little bit of brain.

157. Marja - March 21, 2013


Does anyone have a suggestion?

1 – I hit “play” on trailer
2 – “Download QuickTime to view this video”
3 – I hit “download”
4 – Immediately it says “Thanks for downloading QuickTime” [hit Refresh]
5 – hit “play”
6 – “Download QuickTime”
7 – Immediately it says “Thanks for downloading QuickTime”
[Loop repeats.]

Does QuickTime not work on Windows 8 ???

158. Nony - March 21, 2013


I know, and I meant that Trek should have and should be above it because presumably (hopefully) the future won’t be as sexist as the present is, and the shows/movies should reflect that. But they never have, because they exist in the present.

159. Nony - March 21, 2013

(Sorry, that was @153 BatlethInTheGroin, forgot the post number.)

160. Newman - March 21, 2013

The sexist scene is also bassd.
BUT I think that’s only a promotion thing they do in the trailer.
I bet Carol Marcus won’t be a small, willingless sex toy in the actual movie.

The producers and authors might have many flaws, but they proved in series like Alias or Fringe that they are able to write strong female characters.
Also Uhura – although they also used her for sexist reasons – still became quite a strong, independent personality in ST 09.

But I also wished it wouldn’t be neccessary, especially when it is that obvious. If marketing reasons then please a little more subtle.

A more general problem of the new Star Trek movies is an other (which automatically includes sexism):

Star Trek used to promote ideals of enlightenment.
And that these ideals changed our future.

For those of you who don’t know what I am talking about:

But the future of ST09 and STXII looks like the present, just with more tech.

161. Newman - March 21, 2013

On Enlightment I just quote the first sentences of Wikipedia.

THAT is what Star Trek WAS about:

Its purpose was to reform society using REASON, CHALLENGE IDEAS grounded in tradition and faith, and ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition,[1] intolerance and some abuses of power by the church and the state.

162. Mr. Anonymous - March 21, 2013

So, it’s okay for men to be objectified in films like “Magic Mike,” but when Alice Eve shows a little underwear in the new “Star Trek,” it’s sexist and offensive? Christ..

163. sean - March 21, 2013

I’m okay with sex in Star Trek as it’s been there since the beginning (there’s a reason William Ware Theiss’ gravity-defying designs are still held in such high regard down to this day). I just hope the women & men are on equal ground. Meaning if we’re going to see Alice in her underwear than it’s only fair we see the fellas in their underwear for those that would enjoy that. After all, just as folks marveled at WWT’s designs for the ladies in TOS, there also always seemed to be an excuse for Kirk to rip off his shirt.

164. Marja - sad, sad Marja - March 21, 2013

Can someone help me?

See my post # 157

Can’t see trailer b/c I can’t seem to download QuickTime on my Windows 8 system

Does it work ONLY on Apple computers? QuickTime says it’s for PC or Mac …?

Or will it simply be another day before PC users can see the trailer – I seem to remember this from Trailer #2 …?

: (

165. SpudUk - March 21, 2013

@161 – Really? Scientific thought!? Reason!? It was usually just made-up techno babble and psuedo-science! There was very little dealings with faith until DS9, and to be fair from the trailers so far I think ITD is going to deal with intolerance and the abuse of power.

166. Iva - March 21, 2013

162. Mr. Anonymous – March 21, 2013

So, it’s okay for men to be objectified in films like “Magic Mike,” but when Alice Eve shows a little underwear in the new “Star Trek,” it’s sexist and offensive? Christ..

It’s a movie about strippers, if there is a place for naked men it’s in a movie about male strippers given that the whole plot revolves about them being half naked.

Is Doctor Marcus a stripper? Is her underwear somehow relevant to her expertise and/or adds to her job? Is this movie called Into the Strippers Club?
Is the hunt for the terrorists going to fail unless she flashes some at the audience?

167. Iva - March 21, 2013

*I’m talking about Magic Mike – it’s a movie about strippers.

Star Trek isn’t (supposed to be).

168. i'mPaul - March 21, 2013

Sex and Star Trek go hand in hand. Kirk was a whore and got it on with every alien chick he could. J.J. Star Trek is calling back to that. People seem to forget that the original Star Trek wasn’t just social commentary sometimes it was just good fun, action, adventure….and sex. It was designed as a western in space. Are some of you forgetting that Kirk, like Gene himself often objectified women. Not to mention, sex appeal was arguably sadly missed from all of the followup incarnations of Star Trek.

169. Spike - March 21, 2013

I’m kinda thinking Pike bites it in this one.

170. Danpaine - March 21, 2013

One of the stupidest arguments I’ve seen on these boards, which is saying quite a bit. Sexuality is an integral part of Trek, and I agree it was vastly underused in the late 80’s, early 90’s incarnations.

This movie is mainly aiming at males, teens to mid-30’s, who tend to appreciate an attractive woman. That’s called biology, and equals vast ticket sales.

At the risk of fueling this even more – Relax Ladies, it’s ok you don’t look like Alice Eve. She’s an actress, you’re not.

171. Marja, no longer sad! : D - March 21, 2013

THANK YOU to the person who suggested YouTube – it worked, I saw it, and it looks terrific, except for the somewhat trite title cards.

It was Adm Marcus telling Kirk that Starfleet is not about vengeance.

As far as sexism, Roddenberry in both his personal and professional life, was pretty liberal with the sex [had affairs while married, had most women featured on Star Trek in short skirts, put Deanna Troi in decolletage-baring counselor “uniforms” and yes indeedy, let us not forget Ilyia the Deltan whose sexual energies were described in great detail in Roddenberry’s novelization of TMP.

Agree, William Theiss’s costumes were very sexy and innovative, especially considering the limited budget he had to work with. He was a costuming genius, at least when it came to women. The jumpsuits on men got a little old [especially those horrible baggy things on the crewmen], but in earlier days the men’s [guest stars] costumes were good too.

Yeah, Mr Roddenberry liked him some sexy females. And the tradition continued into “Enterprise” with T’Pol and the Orion ladies, et. al.

172. Iva - March 21, 2013

If you remember the pilot and the discussion that went around the time and on this topic, it was the Paramount people who decided on majority of sexist development in the finalized version of ST – not Gene, Gene was the one who complained about it quite vocally.

The only person claiming he had any affairs is Nichelle, she says he cheated on his wife with her and supposedly that’s what got her the job.

It is notable to mention that she only started this rumor after he died, just like all her other “Gene told me this secretly in private and nobody else knows anything about it but you have to believe me ” comments. Figures.

173. Nano - March 21, 2013

I’ll wait for the Youtube link, Quicktime is so not happening…

174. Crone - March 21, 2013

Wow. That looks great. I am a 61 year old original series Trekkie and feminist and I say,WTF is wrong with sex? Every creature on this planet does it, it’s just not that big a deal. That said, I wish the preview also featured Chris Pine in his underwear.
Love, dirty old lady

175. Geek Girl - March 21, 2013

TOS Star Trek; intelligent, academic, philosophical

JJ Abrams Star Trek: lens flair, explosions, people running around shouting

176. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

Oh for the love of Pete, it’s like beating my head against a wall, I swear:

The topics of sex and objectification are two DIFFERENT topics. I don’t know how many times I have to say this and in how many threads before it finally sinks in.

Sex is any act with the purpose of physical gratification between consenting adults.

Objectification is 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.

Do we see the difference here? If not let me break this down even more: in the former description those involved in the act are allowed to retain their personhood. In the latter, they’re not.

We get one shot of Carol in this trailer. Do we see her skillset, her hobbies, her intelligence or her courage? Was there any moments highlighting her leading up to her shot in her underwear at all? No. Therefore, in this trailer at least, she is being objectified.

As for the poster who pointed to “Magic Mike” as a showing of equality within objectification…

(From •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.

Bottom-line: that shot of AE was indeed objectifying. This is a common trend for Hollywood. It has unfortunate implications and both psychological and sociological adverse effects. I have posted links going into detail into this topic before, and I can do so again if anyone wants empirical evidence to what I am saying here.

Having said all of that (for like the 50 billionth time), the rest of the trailer is incredible! I’m totally sold on BC as the villian and very excited to see this film (minus any objectification).

177. Mad Mann - March 21, 2013

Well, that was the most non-Star Trek trailer for a Star Trek movie I ever saw.

Yeah, I’ll see the movie, but I’m really not looking forward to it. I just hope the Klingons are cool. If they nail the Klingons but the rest of the movie sucks, I’ll be happy. If not, then I’m never gonna see another JJ movie again.

178. rama - March 21, 2013

174. lol

It’s disingenuous to claim that any reveling of skin is objectification anyway..we’re a sexual species, we’re going to react to such things, use it in our ads and trailers. So should we repress this? We’ve taken a step backwards somewhat over the last few decades in the US on this issue. We really should be more comfortable with our bodies and seeing others.

I’d also like to point out for men and women, if you’re looking at ads and comparing yourself it’s your own issue if you have problems with it, not the ads..the ads are holding their models to ideals, not people at large. If you are worried about it, either do a)ignore it b) go work out. I’ve done porsonal training so I’d be happy to help out. lol

179. rama - March 21, 2013

175. Geek Girl

Tell that to the creators of the movies, none of the other movies got a Writer’s Guild nom (yes for WRITING), a Nebula award nom (by professionals), Saturn nom ( sf fans) AND a Hugo (sf fan award) and scored a 95% amongst critics at RT before ST09. They’d have killed for such recognition. Call it would you will, but it has critical cred.

180. Crone - March 21, 2013

176 – which is why I would prefer a scene of Chris Pine in his underwear- If you’re going to use sex to sell, at least provide those of us who would rather look at naked men something as well. But of course, that is rarely the case. I assume the Powers That Be assume that only heterosexual men enjoy Star Trek. The Powers That Be are wrong.
It did appear to me, upon a cursory review of the comments, that there was some discussion of *any* sexuality at all being inappropriate for Trek. I could be wrong- I really just skimmed through the comments.
At any rate, the trailer looks great and is it May yet?

181. JimJ - March 21, 2013

Holy Trekgasm, Batman! Freaking awesome!!!!

182. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#178. rama:

We really should be more comfortable with our bodies and seeing others.

Except, as I’ve pointed out many, many times, psychologically sexual objectification is having the opposite effect of ‘being comfortable within our bodies’.

You should know this, as I’ve pointed it out to you before.

From a paper published by the American Psychological Association on the subject of sexual objectification (

Objectification theory posits that SO of
females is likely to contribute to mental health problems that disproportionately
affect women (i.e., eating disorders, depression, and sexual dysfunction) via
two main paths. The first path is direct and overt and involves SO experiences.
The second path is indirect and subtle and involves women’s internalization of
SO experiences or self-objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).

Therefore your apologist argument in favor of objectifying the female form holds no basis in fact.

b) go work out. I’ve done porsonal training so I’d be happy to help out. lol

Ad hominem. I actually run four to five times a week (excluding extenuating circumstances as I’ve been ill this past week) and have plans to participate in the Rock ‘n Roll marathon down in San Diego this summer. Which, for a 50-year-old woman, is pretty good. I’m perfectly content with my own body. But that’s besides the point. What you were trying to do here is discredit my argument by casting aspersions on my level of fitness. Didn’t work.

183. omegaman - March 21, 2013

It amazing how people only see what they want to see… obviously the scene with Carol Marcus is not a sex scene per see. Look at the background… she’s obviously about to don either a wetsuit or spacesuit for part of the mission that requires her skill set.

184. Johnny - March 21, 2013

Good lord, people. When did Star Trek fans become such prudes?

Look at the Original Series. Do you SEE the costumes the women are wearing? And you have a problem with Alice Eve being in her underwear while she’s changing into a spacesuit? Come on. And it’s not like she’s JUST in the movie to be the sex object. She’s a scientist. I’m sure she’ll do some science in the movie!

I also take issue with everyone saying that “This isn’t Star Trek”.

Guess what? It most certainly IS Star Trek. How many of the 11 movies have focused on the “space exploration” aspect of the franchise? Two, by my count — Final Frontier and Insurrection. And they’re both *terrible* films. The other films are variations on “revenge”, or “earth is threatened”, or “time travel to 20th century Earth” stories.

ST09 was an “origin” story. Star Trek Into Darkness looks like it’ll be a political thriller of sorts… in the vein of “Undiscovered Country”.

185. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#183 omegaman:

It amazing how people only see what they want to see… obviously the scene with Carol Marcus is not a sex scene per see.

No offense but that’s kind of beside the point. She doesn’t need to be in a sex scene to be objectified. Showing her in her underwear qualifies under the ‘objectification’ header.

186. Michael Towns - March 21, 2013

Good grief.

187. Archer - March 21, 2013

Ahem. Anyway, great trailer. If I wasn’t excited before (I was), I’d certainly be excited now (I still am).

188. Patrick - March 21, 2013

So…This is JJ Abrams doing Star Trek does The Dark Knight (hell, they have Darkness in the title) with John Harrison as The Joker.


189. Johnny - March 21, 2013

Just because a woman (or a man, for that matter) takes their clothes off in a movie doesn’t mean they’re being “objectified”. This is the 21st century. Why do we still have a problem with seeing some skin? Most other countries around the world have no problem with nudity, yet we freak out when we see women with their bras on?

190. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#189 Johnny:

See my post #182 which includes an excerpt from the American Psychological Association’s report on the damaging psychological effects of objectification on the female psyche.

Here is the link to the entire paper if you’d like to read more:

191. Keachick - March 21, 2013

Wonderful trailer. So much to see and take in. Oddly, I never noticed the scene with Carol Marcus in her underwear until I read the comments here and so I had to go back to see for myself. Oh yeah, *there she was and so was Kirk, with a very serious look on his face. Given that we have only seen Carol Marcus in this trailer and others fully clothed wearing the Starfleet standard issue blue Medical/Science uniforms until this, I guess there must have something serious to draw her away from her own quarters where she was dressing or undressing. Context again.

Having read such levels of what I would define as very immature postings, I hardly think that someone like Rachel has any business giving me and others her assessment of my maturity or otherwise.

Curiously, I think that showing Carol Marcus in her underwear may actually undermine STID’s capacity to make its mark in places like India or China. As far as I know, India has a very prudish outlook to the sight of scantily dressed females on film. Perhaps this outlook has changed in more recent times – I don’t know. I could say more in this regard but I won’t because I would only be accused of rambling and ranting and whatever I might say, ignored anyway.

I am hoping that we might get a scene of James Kirk coming out of the shower (with towel?) and in the middle of getting dressed when an alarm goes off – perhaps that is what happens in the scene with two Caitians…you know, seen being a normal healthy human being.

* This scene appears to confirm what Chris Pine said – ie that while Kirk may be interested and attracted (sexually) to Carol Marcus and vice versa, there seems to be little opportunity for either of them to pursue that attraction, given what is happening and needs to be dealt with – NOW. Given what I saw of Kirk’s expression, Carol Marcus could have stood there completely naked and Kirk still be totally focused on more important and pressing/serious events…in other words, at the particular time/place, the need to survive outweighed sexual attraction and desire.

192. David - March 21, 2013

May 9 in the UK


Yay for me !

193. David - March 21, 2013

@ 9 :

It’s Admiral Marcus.

194. Red Dead Ryan - March 21, 2013


Keachick, you need to start respecting other people’s opinions.

Also, the men in India aren’t prudes. They actually hyper-sexualize women to the point where females can’t go outside without being sexually harrassed, and now its gotten to the point where girls and women are being gang-raped and murdered en masse in crowded streets while passers-by watch and cheer on the men committing these acts of horror and cruelty.

195. Keachick - March 21, 2013

The real psychological damage occurs when children are brought up feeling scared and ashamed of being in their own skin and that it needs to be always covered because the natural self is deemed bad, indecent, rude, or somebody to be “objectified”. The feelings continue on into adulthood. Then come the toy manufacturers, the models parading the catwalks of the world, the cosmetics industry, the cosmetic surgery industry, the movies and television, the diet and exercise industry and of course, the advertizers (all worth billions of dollars) – all playing into the inbuilt insecurities most people have about the way their bodies look, don’t look like, should look like etc.Then we have the eating disorders – overeating, undereating and so it goes on. In terms of weight issues like obesity – think also – the prevalence of corn syrup in most American diets, esp. any processed food.

Phil described me as being creepy. No, what is happening because of our inability to accept ourselves because of what we have been conditioned to believe from an early age and which we pass onto our children, especially girls, is what is really creepy and truly damaging.

Anyone can be the subject/object of “objectification”. Bollywood movie actors and actresses are often “objectified” and yet rarely are the females, in particular, ever seen be not being covered from head to foot.

Please – widen your understanding and perspective on these very serious issues.

196. Johnny - March 21, 2013


The report you are citing has absolutely zero relevance here, because no one is being objectified. Your entire argument just comes off as extremely prudish. Are you not comfortable seeing a little skin?

Sexual objectification (according to wikipedia) — “refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one’s sexual pleasure.”

Carol Marcus is an intelligent scientist, who Kirk ends up having a child with in the original timeline. She is much, much more than a sex object. Look at the context of the trailer. They’re in a shuttle, where it’s implied that she is changing her outfit — possibly into a spacesuit.

Do you seriously think that any scene with a woman (or a man, for that matter) in her underwear automatically qualifies as “sexual objectification”? How about all the women who wear bikinis at the beach. Do you think they are objectifying themselves? And damaging their psyches?

197. Keachick - March 21, 2013

Yet my understanding of the Bollywood movie industry in general is that it is what might be described as “prudish” by many people’s standards. It just goes to show that censoring the sight of partially covered humans on film does not necessarily encourage bad behaviour on streets and in homes, because the fact is that even partially clad females (in particular) are not generally seen on any film in India.

Covering up may do more harm than good. Most of the sexual violence against women and girls seems to occur where women and girls are given no cultural, legal options but be covered from head to foot. Much goes unreported, so it is often just estimated, but it is not good.

Red Dead Ryan – what does “respecting other people’s opinions” mean? That I should simply say “Yes” when I don’t agree? Posters here have often made all kinds of unkind and personal comments to me and about me. Would you describe their personal comments “respectful”?

Anthony Pascale has warned me not to take (negative) comments other make too personally, too seriously and not to always reply in kind. This, in itself, does presuppose that some of these comments may indeed personal and unkind. Sometimes I do not know what to think, how to respond, except to find tears running down my cheeks, not even knowing if I have anything legitimate to be upset about… Then there are posters like Rachel, who I do not recognise…

Rachel described me as –
“Keachick is an immature pretty girl in love with love and pretty boys who hasn’t grown up yet. Young good looks fade, then what is left for a woman if that’s all she focussed on as an identity?”
and Phil described me on another thread as being “over-the-top creepy”.

Which “pretty boys who hasn’t grown up yet” is she referring to? The 32 year old Chris Pine who plays James Kirk? Sight unseen, I have to say that it is nice that Rachel refers to me as “pretty girl”. I may not be that pretty but I can live with the notion that someone might think that I am…:) Of course, it does beg another question and that is – what is wrong with being in love with love? I guess it has to do with how “love” is defined.

198. Gary Makin - March 21, 2013

I don’t remember any women complaining about Kirk in his underwear in ST09.

199. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#195 Keachick:

No, what is happening because of our inability to accept ourselves because of what we have been conditioned to believe from an early age and which we pass onto our children, especially girls, is what is really creepy and truly damaging.

Media plays more of a role in ‘our inability to accept ourselves’ than you are giving it credit for doing, here.

From that same APA paper I’ve been linking over and over and I really wish people would read:

…. the APA’s (2007b) review of studies examining
depictions of women in the media including commercials, prime-time television
programs, movies, music lyrics and videos, magazines, advertising, sports
media, video games, and Internet sites revealed that women more often than
men are depicted in sexualizing and objectified manners (e.g., wearing
revealing and provocative clothing, portrayed in ways that emphasize their
body parts and sexual readiness, serving as decorative objects). In addition,
women portrayed in the media are frequently the target of men’s sexists comments
(e.g., use of deprecating words to describe women), sexual remarks
(e.g., comments about women’s body parts), and behaviors (e.g., ogling, leering,
catcalling, harassment).

200. Trekkiegal63 - March 21, 2013

#196. Johnny:

Once again, sexuality and objectification are two separate things.

They did not show any scenes leading up to her in her underwear, or any scenes after it. They did not give her any personality within the confines of that scene.

We know who Carol Marcus is because we are fans of Star Trek who, I would hope, have all seen The Wrath of Khan, most of us many times over. The average viewer, the one they are trying to appeal to here to ‘widen the appeal of Trek’, they don’t have that backstory. What they have is a single shot of an attractive blonde woman in her underwear and little else to go along with it. So, yes, that is objectification.

I’ve had this argument with you before as well. You know my stance and you know it is not going to change.

201. Vultan - March 21, 2013

It’s a good trailer… up to the point, as others have noted, of showing Carol Marcus in her underwear, which is pretty much the same tired marketing tactic used in a lot of recent big, dumb action movies. Transformers, Die Hard 5 and Man on a Ledge come to mind. So I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that’s what we have here, folks: a big, dumb action movie and nothing more.

Sexist? Yes. But what’s worse? It’s unoriginal.

202. Commodore Adams - March 21, 2013

AWESOME! Looks intense, and Alive Eve…you really know the way to a man’s…….uh….heart. Yea its a ploy but w/e im not going to nitpick, she is sexy, I have a penis, im not complaining, it unnecessary, but im not complaining. And don’t forget we will get Kirk in a threesome with two other alien ladies lol. I am damn eager to see the dynamic between Harrison and the crew. I am also curious as to how they bump up the emotional level. I can tell ya that the Enterprise falling and the other starfleet ship crashing down make me cry :(

Can’t wait to see it in IMAX, especially the way Burke was describing pushing the limits of 3D while in Russia.

203. Michael Towns - March 21, 2013

Good grief..

204. CanOpener1256 - March 21, 2013

The quick impression I get from the now infamous Carol Marcus underwear scene is that she is saying “what’s the big deal?” The look on her face and hand gesture leads me to think that Kirk and Carol are in a situation where they need to strip down. Kirk probably acted as a gentlemen and deferred and ten she strips and says, what’s the deal? If this turns out to be fact, then I think it fits in te Star Trek universe.

205. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - March 21, 2013

I believe the purpose of a trailer is to provide a hook to as many different people (with different backgrounds and expectations) as possible to get them to come to the cinema to watch the movie. The purpose of the movie itself is to provide entertainment at a sufficiently high level that those people will tell their friends to come and see it and/or see it again themselves.

Therefore, while I might not find every scene in a trailer appealing, the marketing team will have considered what scenes to include to provide the hooks to the most diverse audience as possible. Once they are in the cinema, their enjoyment of the movie will be linked to the movie as a whole – not just the hook that got them there in the first place.

So the underwear scene in the trailer is just a hook, just as including Chekov in the Russian trailer or upset Uhura in the Mexican trailer are hooks. The scene in the movie itself may or may not come off as objectification – only time and context will tell.

Just for a comparison, I had a look at the Star Trek 2009 trailers just now and found that the Theatrical trailer, the Superbowl trailer, the TV trailer and the 2nd trailer all show Kirk & Gaila making out. The TV trailer and the 2nd trailer also show Uhura in her underwear.

206. VOODOO - March 21, 2013

For some reason I’m not feeling this the same way I was for the 09 film. This just seems like a straight non stop action film…Just my first impression. I hope I’m 100% wrong.

207. rickindc - March 21, 2013


208. Trek Fan - March 21, 2013

194. Red Dead Ryan
Keachick, you need to start respecting other people’s opinions.

This coming from someone that blasted and put down anyone that had a differing opinion from his Cumberbatch is Khan theory.

209. Johnny - March 21, 2013

@204 CanOpener

Nail, meet head.

210. RAMA - March 21, 2013

182. I didn’t direct my comment at you so its interesting you took the comment personally.

Yes I’m sure women take the appearance of women in ads personally, my point is it shouldn’t be so…the ads idealize the human form, but they don’t suggest that everyone should look that way, it is the viewer that impresses their ideas on the imagery. So the point here is stop letting yourself, sons, daughters be affected by it. This by no means suggests that someone shouldn’t take care of their condition, only that you shouldn’t compare to others.

Psychology isn’t an exact or “hard” science, it’s interpretation to a large extent. Im not convinced that any appearance of skin is pure objectification, it still looks like normal human behavior. The revealing of skin has had shame associated with it for millenia in many cultures, and if we took it with a little less embarrassment we wouldn’t be assessing it in the terms you suggest.

In any case, this sudden exaggeration of the appearance of skin in Star Trek is not based on anything concrete, skin has appeared in ST before and will so again, it IS used to gain attention but is also part of normal human behavior.

From what I understand Carol Marcus is still a scientist, a weapons expert and is integral in solving the problem in the movie…if she can do all that and still appear in panties then she’s pretty well rounded, and I see no harm in it.

211. RAMA - March 21, 2013

206. Not sure how you’re getting that impression…the trailer is action packed, but the plot looks more complicated…

212. trekker670 - March 21, 2013

Is it just me or does the soundtrack sound very reminiscent of “Requiem for a Tower?”

213. Curious Cadet - March 21, 2013

@200. Trekkiegal63,
” What they have is a single shot of an attractive blonde woman in her underwear and little else to go along with it. So, yes, that is objectification.”

Yup. Moreover, there are no shirtless shots of Kirk, or any other males for that matter. It is a single shot of a sexy girl in her underwear with absolutely no context as to why she is there, much less why she’s in her underwear.

The message is clear: hey GUYS, Star Trek is not just for nerds anymore, there’s Michael Bay level action, Batman level baddies, and sexy scantily clad chicks!! Cme one, come all!

There is absolutely NO other purpose for that shot in the trailer.

214. DonDonP1 - March 21, 2013

Cool! BTW, at 2:34, that text meant the 9th of May of 2013, not September the 5th of 2013.`

215. CoffeeProf - March 22, 2013

To all of your up in arms about the Carol Marcus thing…STOP IT! You don’t know the context of the scene. You’re making prejudgments on a less than half a second bit of film.

216. Rose (as in Keachick) - March 22, 2013

Rama, I agree with you.

You know – I think one of the most dangerous, unholiest words spoken and quoted comes from the New Testament “…clothe the naked…”.
I’m not sure the words were necessarily meant to be interpreted as they have been. Very sad.

Why do you think the media through advertizers working for billion dollar businesses find it so easy to impress upon so many people the need for this, that or the next thing to make them look better etc? Why do so many people feel so bad about themselves and their bodies that they need to seek help from psychologists, psychotherapists and others?Think, think!

One only needs to look at some of the comments here…

217. Jack - March 22, 2013

Yes, because Star Trek has never ever objectified women… (sigh)

Of course it’s in the trailer to bring in guys. And it’s probably in the movie for the same reason.

218. Johnny - March 22, 2013


“For some reason I’m not feeling this the same way I was for the 09 film. This just seems like a straight non stop action film…Just my first impression. I hope I’m 100% wrong.”

I think the problem is that the marketing this time around hasn’t been nearly as focused. If I recall, there were only three trailers for ST09, total. The excellent teaser, and then two theatrical trailers (the latter of which I believe is one of the single greatest trailers of all-time). Then we got a bunch of TV spots in the month or so before the release. All of the marketing advertised an origin story… a reboot of Star Trek.

This time around, we’ve had several different teasers, and international trailers, which I think are more scattered, and just not cut together as efficiently as the previous film’s. Nothing as *memorable* as ST09 trailer #3. They’re advertising a visually stunning, action-packed sci-fi film. This puts people in the seats, but it doesn’t tell us anything about the *story* of the film.

I think people are jumping to the conclusion that because we’re not seeing the story on display in the trailers, that there ISN’T a story at all. I don’t think that will be the case. It looks to me like a political thriller of sorts, which goes right in line with what the writers said a few years ago, about how it will be a modern-day allegory.

219. Johnny - March 22, 2013

@210 RAMA

“In any case, this sudden exaggeration of the appearance of skin in Star Trek is not based on anything concrete, skin has appeared in ST before and will so again, it IS used to gain attention but is also part of normal human behavior.”

“From what I understand Carol Marcus is still a scientist, a weapons expert and is integral in solving the problem in the movie…if she can do all that and still appear in panties then she’s pretty well rounded, and I see no harm in it.”


Could not have explained it any better. Skin is not a new concept in Star Trek… it’s been prevalent in the franchise since the beginning. And it’s not just scantily clad women. Captain Kirk, Sulu, and other male characters have appeared shirtless plenty of times, haven’t they?

220. Johnny - March 22, 2013


I also just don’t buy your (or your study’s) argument that women are objectified more often than men in film. Sure, it may be true for other types of media and entertainment… commercials, music videos, and sporting events (cheerleaders). But in the movies? i really don’t think there is an issue. Plenty of male characters have appeared shirtless recently. James Bond. Captain America. Thor. Everyone in Magic Mike.

221. Giez - March 22, 2013

@ Trekkiegal63

Seriously?? a 2 second shot of a great fem bod and you are all crazy claiming…. whatever??!

The trailer was great. If that scene makes you uncomfortable… either report it (she looked too hot … oh, and its degrading)…skip it and move to next article, or admit you just feel weird about yourself and that’s why it makes you uncomfortable… my god. half of this thread is answering to your whining… enough!

222. alice's belly - March 22, 2013

Please quit talking about me…

223. Curious Cadet - March 22, 2013

@215. CoffeeProf,
“You don’t know the context of the scene. You’re making prejudgments on a less than half a second bit of film.”

That’s exactly right. In context of the movie it’s probably fine. In the context of this trailer, it’s 100% objectification. It has absolutely nothing to do with with anything other than exploiting a half-naked female to draw in boys and men.

@217. Jack,
“Yes, because Star Trek has never ever objectified women… (sigh)”

And because Al Jolsen performed in blackface, that gives white actors the right to do it today …?

“Of course it’s in the trailer to bring in guys. And it’s probably in the movie for the same reason.”

Thank you. That’s all anybody is saying. And that of course is objectifying the women in the film. Some people here just don’t seem to get that, and that’s exactly what’s wrong with objectifying them in the first place.

However, at least in the film, Carol Marcus is presumably fleshed out (pun intended) to reflect a whole person and not just a sexy body presented as eye candy, whatever the producers’ actual motivations (and you are most likely right). This is unlikely the case with the so-called cat-women threesome.

224. CoffeeProf - March 22, 2013


Believe what you want to believe and I’ll know what I know.

225. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#221. Giez:

If you have to make an argument personal to get your point across (i.e. ad hominem usage) you’re doing it wrong. Also, another tip for you, I don’t respond to the way you’d want me to when it comes to insults, slander or stronghandling. In fact, it just makes me more determined to stick to my guns.

But the short answer to your ‘enough’?


#220. Johnny:

Uh huh. And for every one Magic Mike, there is a Strip Tease, and a Showgirls, and a Flashdance, shall I go on? Because I can name more if you’d like (From Dusk to Dawn, Closer, Blaze, Moulin Rouge, Mrs. Henderson Presents, Sin City… even my favorite Kevin Smith film, Dogma, has a seen in a strip club. What was Heather Graham’s job in The Hangover again? Oh yeah, that’s right, she was a stripper. Want more?).

My stats came from the American Psychological Association and from Neither organization is connected to the other, yet, strangely, they both came up with really close percentages when it comes to women being objectified way more often than men. As a woman of science, I don’t believe in coincidences. You, of course, are free to believe what you want but me, I think I’m going to go with the organization that actually has the PhD’s behind their names (not that I need them to reaffirm what I already know, I have eyes, I already see what they’re telling me).

#210 Rama:

Yes I’m sure women take the appearance of women in ads personally, my point is it shouldn’t be so…

And John Lennon thought there should be no heaven, above us only sky. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too. He just wanted all of the people, living life in peace. And while I agree with him on some of that, most of it, actually, wishing it (or singing it, as the case may be) doesn’t make it a reality.

…skin has appeared in ST before and will so again

Because two wrongs totally make a right. I mean, it’s not like Trek is supposed to be about progress or anything, right?

From what I understand Carol Marcus is still a scientist, a weapons expert and is integral in solving the problem in the movie…if she can do all that and still appear in panties then she’s pretty well rounded..

And yet, none of that was shown within the trailer. Am I arguing that the portrayal of Carol Marcus in the movie is objectification? No, I haven’t seen the movie yet.

Her appearance within the trailer though? Why, yes, yes it certainly was objectification.

To no one in particular:

Quick point I feel needs to be said (but should be common sense). Loving something does not mean that one has to agree with ever single aspect of it. Being a fan of something is not all or nothing. One can disapprove of sexism, and still love Trek, as a whole. Just you know, FYI. :)

226. LazarusNine - March 22, 2013

Yawn. Terrorism and underwear. There’s seemingly no nuance to this whole exercise.

227. crazydaystrom - March 22, 2013

Hmm. Haven’t really been following this thread but whether it’s immature fanboy ‘below the waist’ reaction or perceived/apparent female objectification or sincere admiration of Ms. Eve’s attractiveness , I wonder how non-Americans on this thread (those presumably unaffected by the notorious American Puritan Ethic) feel about this controversy and debate? The only non-American I know of here for sure is Rose K.

And full disclosure –
I’m a 55 year old American male and my reaction to that Carol Marcus screen grab is mostly the ‘sincere admiration’ with a healthy(?) dose of the ‘below the waist’.

Love, IDIC and LLAP!

228. captain_neill - March 22, 2013

There is a thought provoking intellectual side of Trek I wished Abrams had maintained.

I think Into Darkness will be a better film than the last one, I think this one will rely less on contrivances to get things moving this time. having seen this trailer it looks to be an cool movie. I just hope I come feeling this is a Trek movie.

But I agree with Sarah I do think he has appealed to the lowest common denominator, especially given that some of the humour in the last one does not work and seems silly a la Balloon hands and Scotty in a waterpipe, no where near as funny or charming as the humour in The Voyage Home.

The trailer looks good and I will be there on opening day. Nothing will make me happier than to be proven wrong.

229. captain_neill - March 22, 2013

Though I still not happy about the Enterprise is under water

230. crazydaystrom - March 22, 2013

228. captain_neill –
“There is a thought provoking intellectual side of Trek I wished Abrams had maintained.”

As well, captain neill. My fingers are crossed we’ll get more of that this time, finding a better balance of action and intellect. But if Bad Robot doesn’t find the balance that pleases both fans and nonfans I want huge boxoffice for Star Trek so that the franchise can continue to go boldly into the future so that if they don’t do it the next “crew” will have a chane to.

231. -H- - March 22, 2013

Has anyone seen this?


232. Johnny - March 22, 2013

I still don’t buy it, Trekkiegal.

You’re saying that we can’t see strippers in movies, because it’s “objectification”? But it’s real-life. Are you saying that movies can’t portray real-life interactions any more? Sure, Star Trek is about progress… but that “progress” you speak of has to be realistic, doesn’t it? Women (or men) aren’t going to start covering themselves up 24/7 in the future, are they?

There is a difference between the objectification of women, and women expressing their sexuality. Alice Eve is clearly making some sort of remark to Kirk in that shot, isn’t she? Look, you can argue all you want that that shot in the trailer is objectification… but that’s irrelevant. There’s nothing wrong with it. So what if a trailer uses a shot like that to attract the young boy audience? The trailers for Thor, Captain America, Bond, Twilight, and Magic Mike all did the same thing to attract the young girls. It’s one thing if they’re objectified in trailers — because the reality is that sex, action, and effects are what sell movies. It’s another thing if they’re actually objectified in the context of the film.

You know that scene were the giant cat rips part of Padme Amidala’s shirt off and exposes her midriff in Attack of the Clones? THAT is nothing more than objectification. There was no other reason for it to be in the film. It wasn’t part of any romantic interaction, or her expressing herself. It was objectification.

I still don’t see that kind of obvious objectification on display in the new Star Trek films.

233. Michael Hall - March 22, 2013

“Quick point I feel needs to be said (but should be common sense). Loving something does not mean that one has to agree with ever single aspect of it. Being a fan of something is not all or nothing. One can disapprove of sexism, and still love Trek, as a whole. Just you know, FYI. :)”

Good gods, yes. If the Gene Roddenberry I saw at those college lectures during the Seventies was more than willing to cop to ST’s flaws and imperfections–including, most definitely, sexism–then why shouldn’t the fans?

All works of art and entertainment inevitably reflect the cultural assumptions of the times in which they were created. That doesn’t prevent me from still enjoying those shows in context. (Hell, I even have a soft spot for “Mudd’s Women,” probably the most sexist show of them all.) But that doesn’t mean it isn’t in fact sexist, any less than the use of that footage of Alice Eve in this trailer is sexist.

234. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#232 Johnny:

I still don’t buy it, Trekkiegal

Because you refuse to. You decided before you responded to me that first time what your stance is, have chosen to ignore and completely disregard all evidence I’ve posted to the contrary, papers written by the American Psychology Association, by a board of directors with PhD’s behind their names. Stats collected by two differenct .org societies with similar results. A list of films a mile long featuring scantilly clad women even though you claim women aren’t really objectified that much.

I’ve posted excerpts on the damaging effects of constant female overexposure. I’ve talked till I’m blue in the face. You completely ignore the fact that while I have empirical evidence, you’ve provided very little. You have shown little proof to support your side of things other than your own, personal, feelings on the matter.

Which is fine. You believe what you want. I certainly don’t make up your mind for you. But two things: you saying over and over “I refuse to believe it” despite all evidence I’ve posted doesn’t make that evidence magically disappear, nor the social issue it addresses. So your feigning ignorance doesn’t mean everyone else does. Secondly, while you have a right to make up your mind, so do I to make up *my* mind. And I chose NOT to ignore this sociological issue blaring right in front of me. And when I see it crop up, I will address it. How you react to what I’m saying is your problem, not mine.

Lastly, as I stated before, just because I am a Trekkie (and have been for over forty years) doesn’t mean that I have to agree with ALL directions the franchise takes. The rest of the film looks fabulous. However, I am stringently opposed to sexism, and if I see it, even in my beloved Trek, I will call it out. Whether or not you want me to.

235. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

233. Michael Hall:

That doesn’t prevent me from still enjoying those shows in context. (Hell, I even have a soft spot for “Mudd’s Women,” probably the most sexist show of them all.) But that doesn’t mean it isn’t in fact sexist, any less than the use of that footage of Alice Eve in this trailer is sexist.

Exactly! Thank you.

… And I, too, share a soft spot for Harry, even if he was a pig. Maybe it’s because the poor lad was rather his own worse enemy (in the sense that karma seemed to follow him.. love the ending to “I, Mudd”. ;)).

236. Spock's Bangs - March 22, 2013

Trailer by trailer this is drifting further and further away from any ideas I had about Khan being in this movie. I think Harrison is an augment of sorts. but not sure why he is so pissed. Anyone still thinking Khan is involved? Not me, I’m officially jumping off that bandwagon.

237. dswynne - March 22, 2013

Has anyone considered that the shot of Carol Marcus in her underwear was also to generate some buzz, other than the fact that she is “sexy”? You know, “Bad press is GOOD press” and all that? After all, we’re talking about it, and we all know that we’ll see this film at least ONCE to learn the context of the scene. Also, the way thee trailers are cut don’t always get overseen by the producers of their films.

Just my two cents…

238. crazydaystrom - March 22, 2013

237. dswynne –
“Has anyone considered that the shot of Carol Marcus in her underwear was also to generate some buzz…”

Considered it?!? Generating buzz is the sole purpose of a trailer, the more buzz the more successful the trailer.

…“Bad press is GOOD press” and all that?”


” Also, the way thee trailers are cut don’t always get overseen by the producers of their films.”

Correct. Though I suspect Bad Robot has the clout to have most if not total say.

239. Johnny - March 22, 2013


“Damaging effects of constant female overexposure”

Who and what is being damaged by a women wearing her bra in a movie scene? And how is it different than real life — where girls where bikinis all summer long? Are they objectifying themselves?

The entire argument still comes off as extremely prudish. It sounds like you just want everyone to stay covered up 100% of the time. Sex is a natural part of life. You can’t change that, no matter hard you want to believe there is an obvious “problem” right in front of you. People are, and always will be, attracted to the physical attributes of the opposite sex (or even the same sex). You can’t change how the world works.

I have no problem with how women are portrayed in movies these days. There are plenty of intelligent, strong female characters to go around. I don’t have a heart attack when a man or a woman strips down to their underwear on film. It’s just not a big deal… and certainly not damaging to anyone. It’s nothing more than what we see at the beach, is it? Or at a club? Women dress like this in real life.

The fact is, kids are not SOLELY going to go see the film if they see Alice Eve in her bra for less than one second in a trailer. Sure it’s one more reason they might want to see the film… but that *alone* is not enough to buy their ticket. Not when they could *easily* find NUDE photos of her on the internet, for FREE.

240. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#239 Johnny:

For the last time (and from the American Psychological Association’s report on sexual objectification). Here are the damaging side effects, which I’ve shown you on multiple occasions:

Objectification theory posits that SO of
females is likely to contribute to mental health problems that disproportionately
affect women (i.e., eating disorders, depression, and sexual dysfunction) via
two main paths. The first path is direct and overt and involves SO experiences.
The second path is indirect and subtle and involves women’s internalization of
SO experiences or self-objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).

And from yet another article on objectification:

The concept of objectification owes much to the work of Simone de Beauvoir regarding the basic dualism of human consciousness between the Self and the Other: the general mental process where humans classify the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’. Women are universally viewed as the Other across all cultures, a role which is both externally imposed and internalised, and which means that women are generally not truly regarded as fully human. Otherness and full equality cannot coexist.

As for this question, here?

And how is it different than real life — where girls where bikinis all summer long?

Context. It is appropriate to wear a bathing suit to the beach (or the pool) as that is generally what people wear to swim. And the summer months are when people swim. Warmer weather and all that. When you go to the beach (or pool) you expect to see bathingsuits. Everyone is wearing them! Men, women, children, sometimes even dogs. It is not gender specific. There is no one person standing out for the sheer purpose of being eye candy.

In a trailer where the rest of it was intense action, there is this one split second shot of a woman in her underwear, with no pretext given before or after that shot. I.E. objectification.

Will Carol be given personality in the movie? I hope so! Was she in the trailer? NOOOOO!!!!!!!!

My stance has not changed and will not change no matter how many times you say, “but I don’t get it”.

241. Johnny - March 22, 2013


You’re saying that when females see a woman in her underwear in a movie… they’re going to end up with issues like depression and eating disorders?

So… how would this be different from seeing a female with a great body in REAL LIFE? Wouldn’t that have the same effect as seeing one on film?

Girls could choose to wear one-piece bathing suits at the beach, if they’re going for pure functionality. But no, most choose to wear skimpy bikinis, so they can show off their bodies. I don’t think they’re objectifying themselves… I think they’re showing off. They want people to look at them.

So when a girl sees another female with a great body at the beach, wouldn’t that have the same emotional impact on them?

It’s my opinion that if seeing a scantily clad woman on film emotionally impacts a viewer… then they ALREADY have some mental issues. They’re very likely to ALREADY have body image issues. I’m just trying to understand how seeing a woman’s enviable body on film is any different than seeing one in real life?

242. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#241 Johnny:

So… how would this be different from seeing a female with a great body in REAL LIFE? Wouldn’t that have the same effect as seeing one on film?

Nope. Nice try to stick firmly in your denial, however.

There is a term for what you’re hitting on here. As in the difference between film depiction and reality. It’s called ‘the male gaze’. Google this term and you’ll find plenty of documention supporting it. But I’ll sum it up with an excerpt from an article for you:

While the ideas behind the concept were present in earlier uses of the gaze, the introduction of the term “the male gaze” can be traced back to Laura Mulvey and her essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”. In it, Mulvey states that in film women are typically the objects, rather than the possessors, of gaze because the control of the camera (and thus the gaze) comes from factors such as the as the assumption of heterosexual men as the default target audience for most film genres. While this was more true in the time it was written, when Hollywood protagonists were overwhelmingly male, the base concept of men as watchers and women as watched still applies today, despite the growing number of movies targeted toward women and that feature female protagonists.

Though it was introduced as part of film theory, the term can and is often applied to other kinds of media. It is often used in critiques of advertisements, television, and the fine arts. For instance, John Berger (1972) studied the European nude (both past and present) and found that the female model is often put on display directly to the spectator/painter or indirectly through a mirror, thus viewing herself as the painter views her.

And if you STILL don’t understand (which I’m confinced you wont as you seem rather determined not to) a nice comic strip author/artist put the concept of the ‘male gaze’ within film into a comic strip with talking dinosaurs. Perhaps you might take this information better from talking dinosaurs than a fellow Trek fan.

243. Michael Towns - March 22, 2013

Good grief….

244. K-7 - March 22, 2013

Sheesh, you never hear guys complaining like this about chick flicks?

245. Johnny - March 22, 2013

Then who is being damaged, Trekkiegal? I’m a little bit fuzzy here.

— I’m talking about FEMALES looking at FEMALE bodies on film. A guy isn’t going to look at a girl in a movie, and develop body issues of his own, is he? No… the gender being “damaged”, as you and your study claims, is the FEMALE sex! They look at the bodies of the women portrayed on film, and develop body issues of their own. Isn’t that correct?

Even if you are saying that the “male gaze” portrays these women on film in a more objectified manner, that still doesn’t make it any different from real life. They still have the same bodies, don’t they? Don’t try to deny that girls don’t look at the bodies of other girls in real life, and become insecure about their own. Because they most certainly do. There are plenty of other factors that are arguably MORE to blame than the objectification of women on film. Bullying, being the most obvious.

246. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

Because women learn to view themselves as the ‘male gaze’ views them on camera! Thus making the objectification process as internal as it is external! AS THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION EXCERPT I’VE QUOTED NUMEROUS TIMES NOW ALSO POINTS OUT.

In real life a woman isn’t born viewing herself as an object. She isn’t born judging her worth by her appearance. She is TAUGHT that through media (film, television, magazines, advirtisements) shown through ‘the male gaze’. Is this really so hard a concept for you to understand? I can’t believe you are actually this stupid, therefore I’ve come to the conclusion you’re messing with me.

247. Johnny - March 22, 2013


That’s complete B.S. Your study is not “fact”. Sure, it’s a reputable study, but it should in no way be considered fact.

Forget going to the movies. Again, are you denying that women aren’t jealous of other women’s bodies in REAL LIFE? That they don’t look at another woman’s body and become self conscious of their own? Really, I don’t understand how you can think that the problem can be traced back to the media.

And heck, I would argue that seeing women with healthy, athletic bodies on film is a GOOD thing. Keep in mind that we hardly ever see a woman who is too THIN in movies — and if we DO, they are immediately criticized as having an eating disorder. So most often, we see women who have natural, athletic, healthy bodies, correct? I’d say this is a good thing, because it would encourage an overweight person to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Obesity is such a huge problem right now, especially in the United States. 1 in 3 kids are either overweight or obese. Seeing actors with healthy weights in the movies should encourage them to lose their own excess weight.

Now… they absolutely HAVE to do it in a healthy way. With approved, safe diets and work-out plans. It’s not about girls being ashamed of their bodies and trying to lose weight… that’s not the problem. It’s HOW they go about losing that weight. Women being objectified on film are not the problem — it’s how these women are going about losing weight. Often, they do so in a very unhealthy way and develop eating disorders and mental issues. It’s not the job of the movies to step in and fix that — that job is for the individual’s family and friends.

248. Johnny - March 22, 2013

Didn’t mean to criticize the study that harshly. I just mean to say that you are pointing to that study and ISOLATING the problem of individuals with body issues to SOLELY the way that women are portrayed on film and in the media. That’s just not accurate, at all.

Having a good body is not just “desirable”… it is HEALTHY.

249. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#247 and #248 Johnny:

Really, I don’t understand how you can think that the problem can be traced back to the media.

Because statistics prove it.

From the National Institute on Media and Family:

In a study on fifth graders, 10 year old girls and boys told researchers they were dissatisfied with their own bodies after watching a music video by Britney Spears or a clip from the TV show “Friends”.

A 1996 study found that the amount of time an adolescent watches soaps, movies and music videos is associated with their degree of body dissatisfaction and desire to be thin.

One study reports that at age thirteen, 53% of American girls are “unhappy with their bodies.” This grows to 78% by the time girls reach seventeen.

From a study conducted by Kaiser:

In movies, particularly, but also in television shows and the accompanying commercials, women’s and girls’ appearance is frequently commented on: 58 percent of female characters in movies had comments made about their looks, as did 28 percent in television shows and 26 percent of the female models in the accompanying commercials. Mens’ and boys’ appearance is talked about significantly less often in all three media: a quarter (24%) of male characters in the movies, and 10 percent and 7 percent, respectively, in television shows and commercials.

One in every three (37%) articles in leading teen girl magazines also included a focus on appearance, and most of the advertisements (50%) used an appeal to beauty to sell their products.

The commercials aimed at female viewers that ran during the television shows most often watched by teen girls also frequently used beauty as a product appeal (56% of commercials). By comparison, this is true of just 3 percent of television commercials aimed at men.

You can verify my source here:

An article, including statistics on media influence on perception:

Some of the stats (this article has pages and pages of them)

73% of teenage girls who abuse diet pills and 79% of teenage girls who self-purge frequently read women’s fitness and health magazines.

Seven out of ten women felt angrier and more depressed following the viewing of fashion model images.

A study that offered preschoolers a choice between two dolls that were identical except for weight, the preschoolers chose the thinner doll nine out of ten times.

…. you think I’m overplaying the role of media in perception? I think you’re downplaying it.

250. Johnny - March 22, 2013


Again, you’re ignoring my point that being overweight is not healthy! 1 in 3 adolescents in the U.S. are overweight or obese. So a good chunk of the people you mention SHOULD NOT be happy with their bodies. They should be encouraged to lose weight and live a healthy lifestyle! Otherwise they are at risk to develop numerous health problems such as diabetes and heart disease, and even early deaths. Preschoolers SHOULD choose the thinner doll, because that is the healthier doll!

The exception to this would be if the doll, or person on TV or in the film is actually UNDERWEIGHT. Which usually isn’t the case (and it certainly isn’t the case with Alice Eve).

Britney Spears has the right to wear whatever she wants when she performs. She’s not being viewed with the male gaze… she is flaunting her body all by herself, is she not? It’s not her fault, or the cameraman’s that some girls will envy her body, even if they already have great bodies. It’s the fault of the girls themselves, who most likely already have some body image issues of their own.

I’m really genuinely trying to have this argument. I’m not messing with you or anything. Just trying to make good discussion.

251. MJ - March 22, 2013

Trekiegal63, most males have a male gaze, and women like to be presentable to a male gaze, because we are hard wired through million of years of evolution to have those habits.

You can try to “discourse this away” all you want, but this is largely a factor of how we are all made, be it from Evolution and/or God — whatever your belief structure may be.

252. Johnny - March 22, 2013

@MJ 251 — See that’s exactly what I’m saying!

It’s natural! Males or females should not have to cover up on camera, or off it just because juvenile minds are easily influenced. It wouldn’t be considered “progress” for Star Trek to eliminate sexuality. Haven’t we seen dystopian sci-fi that addresses this very issue? The elimination of sexuality and romance?

253. MJ - March 22, 2013

Yea Johnny,

I mean I draw the line at “hangover Kirk” waking up with two woman — that just doesn’t fit in Star Trek. But, showing a beautiful body of a real female character in the film – I have no issue whatsoever with that.

254. Michael Towns - March 22, 2013

Thanks to this debate, I’ll never look at a woman in her undies the same way, ever again….

255. Goran'agar - March 22, 2013

It’s hilarious seeing all these people freak out over Alice Eve in her underwear, calling it objectification etc. If it is the latter then JJ is following Roddenberry’s vision very strictly – Nichelle’s mini skirt (at least JJ has toned it down in the JJ verse for Zoe with more coverage), Shatner’s squeeze of the week was in various states of undress, and of course the showrunners for next gen found a perfect excuse for Denise Crosby to show off her amazing body in the ‘naked now’.
Just enjoy it people, the girls got to see Pine in his tighty whities in the first film and now the boys get to see kirk’s squeeze in black (or the opposite if you swing another way)

256. Red Dead Ryan - March 22, 2013

Well, there is no denying that what Trekkiegal63 has posted is true. She did her research, and obviously feel Carol Marcus being shown in her underwear is flagrant sexism. We don’t see a shirtess Kirk in the trailer.

I’m all for appreciating a nice female body on screen, but when it gets to the point of overexposure, it becomes exploitation and that is part of the definition of sexism.

Scantily clad women are being thrown at us in the vast majority of films and shows.

Most of the women on this site are clearly fed up with it and expect better from a franchise that shows us a future that supposedly depicts equality between the sexes.

Female crew members need to be shown as being just as capable and intelligent as their male counterparts.

Doesn’t mean their beauty or nice physique should be downplayed, necessarily, but only that they are represented as real people, and not just living, breathing sex dolls.

257. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

Johnny (and MJ by extension):

Once again, you’re confusing the issue of sexuality and objectification.

Lets try explaining this from a different angle and see if I make headway into at least explaining my mindset on this issue this way.

Am I claiming all men have to take testosterone inhibitors to suppress hormones? No. Am I claiming that you can’t be attracted to a pretty girl? No.

Sexuality is certainly a part of nature. However, as human beings it is but one part of our nature. What I would hope, however, is that any special lady in your lives you enjoy for more than just that aspect of her. Maybe she makes you laugh, has a great sense of humor, perhaps she dazzles you with her intelligence. Maybe you both like chess and spend countless hours playing. Doesn’t matter. What matters is that you see this person in your life as a human being with multiple facets and you respect them.

Carol Marcus is a brilliant scientist. She made Genesis! That is amazing! We know this because we are Trekkies. Just as we know that the name of Bones disease from “For the World is Hollow and I have Touched the Sky” is xenopolycythemia and that Sulu has a knack for botany. Most of the people who post to this site regularly loves Trek enough to be familiar with most aspects of canon, if not outright walking encyclopedias on it.

The average viewer seeing that trailer? The one introduced to Trek through ST2009 or the ones coming to Into Darkness as their first foray into the franchise… do you think they know who Dr. Carol Marcus is? Do they know that while she might be pretty, her brightest, most amazing feature is her mind? Do they know that she figured out a way to scientifically expedite the process of evolution?

No. They don’t. Because they’re not using Carol’s most amazing feature, her intelligence, to sell the film. And you know what those new viewers have seen of her so far? They saw her screaming in one trailer and caught a glimpse of her in her underwear in the next. That’s two sexist cliches now: the damsel in distress and the walking sex on a stick. First impressions are always the most poignant. This has been proven over and over. And the first impression any new viewer has of this lady is that she is hot, and has a powerful set of lungs. Which means the film makers are going to have to work extra hard now to sell Carol as a scientist who saves everybody with her brilliant mind and get over their first impressions made by the trailers.

Once again, the definition of objectification is narrowing a person down to their sexual appeal with no acknowledgement given to any other aspect of their identity.

If the trailer had shown her in a lab coat examining the contents of a petri dish, then shown the underwear scene, I would not have said a word about objectification. But they didn’t. They showed her in her underwear and in her underwear only, giving no inkling to this brilliant mind. Ergo objectification.

There, an entire post without outside references. Now do you get it?

258. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#250 Johnny:

BTW I’m not ignoring the seriousness of obesity. I’m fully aware of its effects. However, you are making the assumption that all of those who are worried about their weight have need to be. Not true. I have a 6-year-old god-daughter who told her extended day caretaker at the local Y the other day that she was fat and needed to go on a diet. Her mother texted me in a panic, wondering where the heck the kid had heard it as she monitors her TV and computer usage. My daughter is fifteen and all of a size 3 yet freaks out if I bring home too many ‘carbs’ from my trip to the grocery store. She had never had a weight problem her entire life and she is on her school’s soccer team.

Also, while being overweight has a definite negative impact on the state of one’s health, so too does being underweight.

More statistics you might have missed from that site Iinked you to earlier?

When asked to choose their ideal body shapes, 30% of women chose one that is 20% underweight while 44% chose an ideal body shape that is 10% underweight.

One study showed that 75% of women consider themselves overweight when, in reality, only 25% were.

Adolescent girls are more afraid of gaining weight than getting cancer, losing their parents or nuclear war.

The majority of runway model meet the Body Mass Index (BMI) criteria to be considered anorexic.

…Thus if you are trying to make the case that the effect of the media has on the preoccupation of appearance is a healthy, good thing, my answer would be, not exactly, no.

259. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#256. Red Dead Ryan:

Thank you, Red Dead Ryan. You’re a good guy.

260. MJ - March 22, 2013

@257. OK, if you are arguing that the trailer in insolation (i.e. without the movie) objectifies Marcus for marketing purposes…sure, I can agree with that.

But who really cares about trailers in these terms? (I don’t!) It is the movies that count. And I expect Carol Marcus will be a fully developed character in this movie, and this scene just looked likes they surprised each other. (this is not like that awful threesome idea — that I DO HAVE A PROBLEM with).

261. Keachick - March 22, 2013

@ Bob Orci – Maybe you have read all the discussion about the trailers and in particular, the comments about showing Carol Marcus in her underwear and the suggestion that Kirk is seen in bed with two “catwomen”.

Are the catwomen actually Caitian (first introduced in the TAS series)?

Did you chose the contents of the trailers?

What do you think about the issues raised here?

An answer would be appreciated and welcomed. Thank you.

262. MJ - March 22, 2013

“One study showed that 75% of women consider themselves overweight when, in reality, only 25% were.”

That is incorrect. NIH has reported that 60% or women in the US are overweight and 70% of men. And as someone who does a ton of business travel across the U.S., I can assure you that there are a ton of fat people everywhere now.

So a huge percentage the entire USA, male and female, has weight problems. My male expanding gut is part of the problem. If Hollywood is trying to show us all the message to be thinning and healthier, then thank goodness someone in the culture is trying to do that.

One might argue that since the percentage of overweight women in less than that of men, that perhaps the perceived pressure from Hollywood and the media on women is having a positive effect, and that maybe it is time for Hollywood to put greater pressure on men as well.

Shatner is a great case of the Hollywood double-standard here, for example — he needs to shed a lot of weight, but the media and Hollywood given him a defacto free pass on being borderline obese.

So yea, I’d like to see more pressure from Hollwood on both men and women for “us all” to lose weight and live healthier.

263. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#244. K-7:

Sheesh, you never hear guys complaining like this about chick flicks?

You should. The bulk of them are horribly cliched.

264. Johnny - March 22, 2013

@Red Dead Ryan 256

“Female crew members need to be shown as being just as capable and intelligent as their male counterparts.”

“Doesn’t mean their beauty or nice physique should be downplayed, necessarily, but only that they are represented as real people, and not just living, breathing sex dolls.”

The female crewmembers in J.J.’s Star Trek ARE portrayed as being just as capable as their male counterparts. Lt. Uhura is the prime example, of course. In ST09, she didn’t get assigned to the Enterprise because she was Spock’s girlfriend (in fact he tried to assign her *away* from the Enterprise). She ended up getting on board the Enterprise, and later relieving the communications officer on the bridge — solely because she EARNED IT. She was shown to be extremely intelligent, and even multilingual. If I recall, they actually made her much smarter than Nichelle Nichols’ Uhura (who in Star Trek VI, had no idea how to speak Klingon).

265. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#260 MJ:

OK, if you are arguing that the trailer in insolation (i.e. without the movie) objectifies Marcus for marketing purposes…sure, I can agree with that.

Yup. That’s exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you!

266. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#262 MJ:

Contradictory reports then. I got my stats on that particular topic (i.e. obesity and the media) from this site here:

Also, if you’re going to make a case for healthier living, which I would totally get behind, the emphasis needs to be on healthy, not BMI’s that are too low, as the current set of models and actresses strive for. Healthy is a combination of exercise and diet, with a weight between the high and low guidelines set for ones height and age by the NIH.

Bottom line, young girls need to understand that there is no magic pill. It’s all basic math. 3500 kcals (otherwise known as calories) above what your body burns, you gain a pound. 3500 kcals below what you body burns, you lose a pound. No would should be losing beyond one or two pounds a week, at the most. And no one over the age of 12 should be eating under 1200 kcals a day.

267. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

I guess what I’m trying to say here, motivation to lose weight? Yes, this can certainly be a good thing. But it needs to be done responsibly because doing it irresponsibly can cause considerable harm, both mentally and physically.

Hollywood is not currently doing it the responsible way.

268. Johnny - March 22, 2013


“Because they’re not using Carol’s most amazing feature, her intelligence, to sell the film. And you know what those new viewers have seen of her so far? They saw her screaming in one trailer and caught a glimpse of her in her underwear in the next.”

That’s because it’s a trailer! A character’s “intelligence” doesn’t sell tickets. Action/effects, sex, and humor does. I don’t think anyone is denying that the shot of her in the trailer is objectification. It is… but only in the context of that trailer. We know that there will be more to her in the movie. Sure, newcomers to Star Trek don’t know that… but why does that matter? Again, you’re complaining about human nature. Guys are naturally attracted to the female body (and vice versa). Trailers are designed to appeal to a specific audience. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter once it’s given context.

And again, I’m wondering why you expect Star Trek to “progress” away from objectifying women? Gene Roddenberry did it in the Original Series on a frequent basis. At the same time, there were plenty of strong female characters on the show. This is exactly what J.J. Abrams is doing in the new films. What is there to “progress” to? It really wouldn’t be realistic for people in the future to be covered up all the time.

Now as far as weight goes, here are the stats, per the CDC:

Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 35.9% (2009-2010)
Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are overweight (and not obese): 33.3% (2009-2010)

Percent of adolescents age 12-19 years who are obese: 18.4% (2009-2010)
Percent of children age 6-11 years who are obese: 18.0% (2009-2010)
Percent of children age 2-5 years who are obese: 12.1% (2009-2010)

That’s 70% of the adult population either overweight or obese. And nearly 20% of each younger demographic obese.

I thought I’d made it clear that I’m only talking about film, specifically — and not the rest of the entertainment and media industry. I have no doubt that many catwalk models are anorexic or otherwise “underweight”. But in film and television, the bodies on display are almost always healthy. We don’t see underweight actors or actresses… and when we do, they’re not being objectified (i.e. Anne Hathaway losing weight to play the role of the dying Fantine in Les Miserables). Off the top of my head, I can only think of one actress that people think is “underweight”: Keira Knightley.

So in the film industry, I really, really don’t think this is a problem. And certainly not a problem in the Star Trek franchise.

269. Michael Hall - March 22, 2013

Well. I can only hope that the actual film itself, and its subject matter, generates this sort of thoughtful, respectful discussion.. Nice to see it happen on a Trekmovie forum, too, of all places. :-)

270. Jim, London - March 22, 2013

Perhaps it’s becuase in the original universe they had a relationship and had a child together….

Seriously grow up – this is not zero dark thirty nor is it aliens (re strong female characters) Its star trek and its focus was always on the main trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Dont like it? Then dont watch.

271. Johnny - March 22, 2013

@Trekkiegal: “Hollywood is not currently doing it the responsible way.”

This is where you are losing me. We’re really not seeing emancipated women in film, are we? Usually we’re seeing slim, athletic, but HEALTHY bodies. Alice Eve included. If an already slim woman sees another similar type of body in a movie and thinks they need to lose weight… there is something wrong with them… not with the movie.

Again, I have no argument whatsoever that other forms of media — fashion shows, underwear commercials have underweight actors. I know for sure that they do. I’m just questioning the fact that underweight women are being objectified in movies lately.

272. Red Dead Ryan - March 22, 2013


Thanks! I do try to be a good guy, but sometimes I can be a jerk on this site, unfortunately.

Anyway, the reason why I agree with you is that I have my own insecurities about my appearance.

When I was younger, I was called “fat”, “ugly”, and “funny looking”. A lot of people were pretty mean to me.

As a result, I am self-conscious about myself. I always look in the mirror to make sure I don’t get fat.

So I can certainly understand your point of view, even though my insecurities never originated in Hollywood films and shows.

273. Red Dead Ryan - March 22, 2013

I wrote two similar posts because my first one at 271 disappears and comes back.

My other post at 273 says the same thing but is worded a bit differently.

I guess I’ll see which one people respond to…

274. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#268 Johnny:

I give up. I really do. Not on speaking out against sexism, I will always do that. But on getting you to perceive something beyond a belief system you carried with you into this thread that’s seemingly carved into stone.

I don’t think anyone is denying that the shot of her in the trailer is objectification.

Yes you did. Multiple times. I just had chicken cacciatore and am drinking a glass of merlot so I’m far too mellow at the moment to bother going back to all of your previous posts and cutting and pasting it, but yeah, you did.

..but only in the context of that trailer.

And I believe I said that I was only talking about the trailer multiple times.

Again, you’re complaining about human nature.

Nope, I’m complaining about misrepresenting women. That you can’t see the difference is your problem. I’ve spent tons of time, trying to explain it all from different angles, and you refuse to see beyond your own needs. The needs of the many (women at 51% of the population) outweigh the needs of the few (I wont make a hasty generalization and say men, because there are some wonderful guys on this site who actually get it, so I’ll just say those of you who refuse to see anything wrong with displaying a woman’s body as nothing more than eye candy to sell something).

Again, you’re complaining about human nature. Guys are naturally attracted to the female body (and vice versa)

And? Be attracted to females all you want. But also recognize that attached to that body is a mind with ideas and feelings and ambition and dreams. Can you do that if the ‘hot’ body is the only piece of the puzzle you’re given?

Gene Roddenberry did it in the Original Series on a frequent basis.

And two wrongs suddenly make a right?

At the same time, there were plenty of strong female characters on the show.

So giving us one strong female character gives them carte blanche to do whatever with the rest of them. Lovely attitude you have there.

Sure, newcomers to Star Trek don’t know that… but why does that matter?

It matters because Carol Marcus is an established character with a great scientific mind. And, more importantly, a woman who deserves more respect than being known for screaming and and looking great in Victoria Secret’s 23rd century line.

What is there to “progress” to?

Not objectifying women. Plain and simple as that.

I thought I’d made it clear that I’m only talking about film, specifically

Britney Murphy. Lindsay Lohen, for awhile there. Callista Flockheart. Jeri Ryan. Angelina Jolie (lately).

What was that recent quote from Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence. Oh yeah. Here it is:

“In Hollywood, I’m obese, I’m considered a fat actress.”

There. Done.

275. Trekkiegal63 - March 22, 2013

#272 Red Dead Ryan:

I think we all have our moments. I try as hard as I can to be patient here (which isn’t really my strong point to begin with) but must admit that there have been times I’ve been sorely tempted to lay into someone using ever expletive at my disposal. I usually hold back… just. ;)

And you’re not alone in the insecurities, my friend. Lost my father to complications with diabetes (kidney failure), and he was only 67 at the time. I’m terrified of going down the same road. It definitely makes a good motivator for keeping myself in-line. But I definitely have the mirror moments, too.

276. Dismayed - March 22, 2013

Woah! This trailer is by far the best movie trailer I have seen in a long time, Star Trek or otherwise. !!!

277. Giez - March 23, 2013

275. Trekkiegal63

Ever think you are over the top here?? Give you props on trying to sell your point… but when your point is that a 2 second clip is chauvinistic .. why bother? Reading all you post makes me think you are in the psychological field… or you need a shrink to help you with these insecurities. Quit stressing on something so insignificant in the realm of life.

I keep hearing all the time that the “new Kirk’s hot”, or that he was in his undies last time… big deal, did it bother any men?? Doubt it… Me.. no. And yes, I loved the green gal too. I hope that’s not another 10 paragraph lecture….

Enjoy the new footage and trailers and the new movie… maybe go see the new movie without undies so they don’t get all bunched up… It’s a movie. Have fun…. Life is short

278. Trekkiegal63 - March 23, 2013

#277. Giez:

You have a point to make? Try to do it without the use of ad hominem attacks. That’s how logical arguments are framed.

Attacking another individual to get your point across weakens your argument (and comes across as you being a bit of a douche, whether or not that is actually the case in real life).

This site is open to commentary (within forum guidelines). I make it. You have no right to tell me what I can and can’t post, what I can and can’t feel, or what I can or can’t wear.

(BTW: You know what’s not in forum guidelines? Making posts personal.)

279. Johnny - March 23, 2013


First of all, you are quoting Jennifer Lawrence! She was joking, and exaggerating. She isn’t considered a “fat actress” by anyone. What she was referring to, was the criticism that she was not thin enough to play the role of Katniss Everdeen in “The Hunger Games”. At the beginning of the novel, Katniss is supposed to be borderline starving. Jennifer Lawrence technically did not look the part. That’s all. No one was saying she is obese… some were just complaining that she wasn’t thin enough for a specific part. Lawrence was being very tongue-in-cheek in her response. It’s just how she talks.

Now let me clarify the whole objectification in the trailer. If I ever said it wasn’t, I didn’t mean it. It wasn’t my intent… but I’ll fully admit that I may have scrambled my words somewhere. I agree that by your definition, Alice Eve is being objectified in the trailer, yes. In the context of the trailer.

But again, you haven’t really answered my main point. That this is less than 24 frames (one second) of the trailer. It most certainly is thrown in there to attract the attention of young males. Because this is one of the three main things that SELLS a movie. The others being action/effects and humor. A character’s “intelligence” is not going to sell any tickets to the mainstream audience… so why would they put it in the trailer? It’s Marketing 101.

But again, I counted the number of frames the shot lasts: 17. That’s less than one second. Is that enough time to make a major psychological impact on someone? I personally don’t think so. If we were talking about the entire scene, that would be a different story. But we’re not. You’ve agreed that in the context of the scene, it may not be blatant “objectification”.


“Britney Murphy. Lindsay Lohen, for awhile there. Callista Flockheart. Jeri Ryan. Angelina Jolie (lately).”


When was the last time any of those actresses were “objectified” in a film?

280. Red Dead Ryan - March 23, 2013

Brittany Murphy died a few years ago. Lindsay Lohan is always getting arrested. Callista Flockhart–no one cares about her. Jeri Ryan–she’s doing a bunch of stuff. No action movies, though. She was objectified during “Voyager” days, not so much now.

281. Giez - March 23, 2013

278. Trekkiegal63

I thought I made my point in the first sentence…

(cut & paste)
“Ever think you are over the top here?? ”

Defensive banter (and previously posted statute language “ad hominem” cut and pasted again) also weakens your own arguments…

Now re read my previous’ posts last sentence and have fun

282. Johnny - March 23, 2013

@280 Red Dead Ryan

Exactly my point. Trekkiegal didn’t name a single actress who’s been objectified on film lately. Within the past several years, *at least*.

283. Trekkiegal63 - March 23, 2013

#279 Johnny:

I have addressed your question many times over. You just refuse to believe it.

So let me sum this up in a very blunt fashion because I’m sick of you asking the same question in multiple ways to either tire me out or catch me in something or I don’t know what the hell your agenda is… other than being an apologist for objectifying women in Trek.

A woman’s body should not be used to sell a film. If sexuality is to be shown, because yes, sex is a part of life, then the woman should be given OTHER context, so as not to objectify her. Because, and I’m speaking as a woman here, so I *know* this from rather personal experience, you know what we’d rather be appreciated for than sex appeal? The entire package! Do you know what I find most attractive about my husband? He can make me laugh, always, even when I’m pissed as hell at him. No one else I know can do that, especially when I’m bound and determined to indulge in a good bit of anger. That he’s also handsome is just gravy.

So this is a simple, simple formula. Women have often been objectified in the past and are currently being objectified. A LOT. Very little progress has been made in decades. We do not like it. It damages our psyche. It makes us feel repressed. There are studies, conducted by those with PhD’s and years and years of experience and data to go on, to support this. And, most importantly, it pisses us the hell off (though yes, there are those out there like Rama, Keachick, the ghost of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, the cannibals of Papua New Guinea and probably an Amish elder or two, who don’t give a care, so I’m not speaking for all of womankind, clearly). However, I’m also not in the minority. Don’t believe me? Want a link to a LA Times, The New Yorker, Salon, Slate, The Huffington and The Gaurdian articles after Seth MacFarlane’s little ‘we see your boobs’ spiel? Because that was a whole lot of very pissed off women writers who made everything I’ve said in this thread look positively passive aggressive by comparison. I can provide the links, too, cause I took fiendish delight out of reading them and probably have the links saved in my cache.

When people do objectify women to sell something? I judge them. When people support objectification, pass it off as ‘no big deal’, act generally dismissive, or try to claim that feminists are soulless harpies for daring to ask to not be objectified, rather to be seen as whole people with thoughts, and abstract ideas and an appreciation for art and music and literature? I judge them, too. Harshly. And envision little voodoo dolls with pins gleefully stuck in them in my head.

When people try to tell me to sit down and shut-up, or call me a prude, when I try to speak out against objectification because I’m ruining their testosterone high? I wish I had the power to curse them with a lifetime of impotency.

If, even in a trailer, they can’t give a woman more than a panties shot? THEN DON’T INCLUDE THE DAMN IMAGE!

That is the bottom line. Do you understand or shall I make a chart? It might be interesting to have a voodoo doll and impotency section of a pie chart.

284. somethoughts - March 23, 2013

So we are not allowed to have sexy people on trailers or movies or tv because it offends people. So by that rational we should not show people eating meat or consuming offensive foods, run Klingons!

This whole bit tires me out, I like USA, Canada because we have freedoms and we are not opressed like in some parts of the west where you are not allowed to show sexy people on tv, movies etc.

I like to eat meat, own phasers, and watch what I want to watch and that is eve in panties in star trek!

You are not taking our meat, beer, guns, playboy, maxim, victoria secret away from us because you think it is not cool.

285. Trekkiegal63 - March 23, 2013

#294 somethoughts:

You don’t even merit anything beyond this sentence.

286. somethoughts - March 23, 2013

Yes because we do not agree with you.

I’ll go back to reading my hawkings and surfing victoria secret models and eating a steak.

287. K-7 - March 23, 2013

“I’ll go back to reading my hawkings and surfing victoria secret models and eating a steak”

LOL. I hear you! Right on, man! Some people need to seriously lighten up here. Anyone who relies on Hollywood to validate their own personal social beliefs is in for a rude surprise.

288. StelArian - March 23, 2013

OK! That’s enough for me. Tickets for London booked! Target: BFI :) No better place on Earth to see the Brit heavily loaded Star Trek on opening day!

289. Edshrinker - March 23, 2013


You previously made a statement, when I said men look with “awe” upon the female form… and said “we don’t want awe, we want respect”. Once again, AWE is a first reaction upon seeing something that shakes us up. Alice Eve looks amazing in that shot, and it is a jaw dropper. This happens for both sexes. Chris Hemsworth in Thor did that for a lot of ladies I know. Jude Law. Daniel Craig. On and on. RESPECT as you keep mentioning in some way or another, takes personality, effort, time, and a close relationship that develops over time. And someday, respect slowly develops.

What we have in a movie is a sound bite. You can’t develop a RESPECT for someone on a movie screen from a couple of flashes of their form. You can only judge physical appearance at first, male or female. It is all you can SEE. By the end of the movie, events happen and you may come to respect a character. But the reason most everyone is beautiful in Hollywood is we like to look at pretty things. Eventually, we just come to love an actor because of the way they present characters (it takes time and effort!). Baby Jeebus, look at Steve Buschemi. Explain that to me. But he is good at how he presents his spin as a character, we don’t care about his less than stellar physical gifts. FYI, Burt Wonderstone is a freaking funny movie and he and Carrey are just perfect.

Please stop demanding that no one treats one of their 5 senses as irrelevant. We see, we like. In time, the other things happen…or not. But movies begin with eye candy, and you hope and pray there are things behind it that makes us think and appreciate a character. Lighten up, Francis.

290. Edshrinker - March 23, 2013


I keep trying to book tickets at an IMAX an hour or so from here and only get frustrated. I work, have to wait until Saturday, but it is worth ot to not have to wait in line for a non-IMAX locally at a midnight screening locally. Assuming they do that here – you know it is a potential summer blockbuster when there are Thurs/Fri midnight screenings. So I will wait for my chosen format and a day off to truly enjoy the day.

So fun to be excited about this. It has been since 2009 Trek that I have wanted to see something this badly. Avengers was close, not because I love Marvel so much as I was SURE Joss Whedon would do something amazing with it. God I miss Firefly.

291. Edshrinker - March 23, 2013

Locally local. You know. Local. Sheesh – proofreading slipped a bit there.

292. Edshrinker - March 23, 2013

Not to be beat a dead horse. But I was thinking as I walked my little Lab around the block… when ladies HEAR Barry White, Buble’ or for some, Steven Tyler… they experience AWE. They melt. If they saw 2 out of the 3 of those guys, well things would be different. So hearing can elicit that as well. It is an initial response, overwhelming your sense(es). I was the same way when I bought my first fleece blanky. It felt AWEsome.

Ok. It actually still does. ;)

It has the Green Bay Packer logo all over it. I can’t give it up.

293. K-7 - March 23, 2013

Thank God. A fifth straight post from this dude and I would have needed some therapy.

294. StelArian - March 23, 2013

Edshrinker: :)

295. Johnny - March 24, 2013


I’m a little late responding — but here goes:

“I don’t know what the hell your agenda is… other than being an apologist for objectifying women in Trek.”


But you have agreed that because we haven’t seen the movie yet… without having seen any context… we have no way of knowing if women are being “objectified” in it. Remember, the trailer is not the actual movie! The Paramount marketing team put together that trailer… not the filmmakers. So your claim that women are being objectified in Star Trek Into Darkness is premature.


“A woman’s body should not be used to sell a film. If sexuality is to be shown, because yes, sex is a part of life, then the woman should be given OTHER context, so as not to objectify her.”


That’s ridiculous. As I, and others on here have explained… it is human nature for men to be attracted to the bodies of women, and vice versa. You can’t change that. People want to see them in movies. Therefore it is a common practice to use these shots in trailers, in order to draw people in. That is the job of the trailer; To entice potential viewers with attractive imagery. Which is likely to include the likes of Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Taylor Lautner, Hugh Jackman, Megan Fox, Zoe Saldana, and Alice Eve in various states of undress.


“If, even in a trailer, they can’t give a woman more than a panties shot? THEN DON’T INCLUDE THE DAMN IMAGE!”


Again, it’s a trailer. It would be darned near impossible to establish Alice Eve (or any other character male or female) as an intelligent scientist in just a trailer. Unless the primary plot of the movie is ABOUT their work as scientists, of course. It’s not the job of the trailer to provide context. That job is left to the actual film.

I’m still just baffled by your entire point. You seem to be advocating that we should never see a scantily clad woman on film… unless she is given other character traits. That’s totally unrealistic. When we see scantily clad women in *real life*, do we automatically deduce her other personal qualities as well? I don’t think so. So when a scene calls for a character to go to the beach, a club, or a fashion show, how exactly are we going to get “the full package” from every scantily clad woman featured in the scene? By your reasoning, scenes in these locations shouldn’t be allowed in the movie at all. That movies should be watered down and not show these types of scenes and characters — in order to avoid damaging some viewers’ opinions of their own bodies. Which is ludicrous

Ultimately, I believe that when the context of a scene calls for a man or woman to be showing skin… it’s absolutely acceptable. It’s how the characters would act in real life, so it should be how we see them act in the movie. It’s just human nature.

Again, sorry if you’re getting frustrated by this. I’m not trying to screw with you — I am genuinely just trying to have an intelligent debate with you.

296. Keachick - March 24, 2013

Johnny – I fear that you and I are the only ones who share a similar viewpoint.

297. Trekkiegal63 - March 24, 2013

#295 Johnny:

I wasn’t going to reply to you again. The environment in this thread is toxic. It’s an environment where male posters glory in their ‘right to gawk at the female form’ and dismiss any dissenting voice by using the same tired excuses any woman who has protested sexism has heard over and over again:

Some examples:

“But women do it too”

“I don’t believe that cited statistic is true!”

“You just don’t like sex so you want to spoil it for everyone else!”

“You’re just taking things way too seriously”

The above have all been used against me at one point in this thread. Sometimes several times. Now I’m not saying all of them have been by you (though some have), other posters have chimed in taking stabs as well. So by the looks of them you’d think I cut and pasted them from here.

I didn’t. They came from the anti-feminist troll bingo card and the sexism bingo card:

So essentially, by speaking out, I made myself the recipient of a good number of the same ol’ tired, cliche and thoroughly overused sexism apologist insults or excuses contrived since Susan B. Anthony dared to suggest that women should be allowed to vote. And it was making me angry. Furious even. Last night I closed my laptop wanting to punch something. Which isn’t exactly a healthy state of mind to be in and not one I particularly glory in. While anger can be beneficial when channeled correctly, it’s also exhausting and not a very pleasant.

But just now, it dawned on me. I’ve tried and tried again to get you to see reason. You refuse to. You, and others, are so convinced in your rightness that there is no way I’m going to convince you otherwise. When a belief system is set within a person, the only person who can change it is the owner of the belief system itself. No one else will be able to. I’ve been metaphorically beating my head against a wall rather pointlessly.

Thus the conclusion I’ve come to that instead of defending my position, what I need to do here is attack yours.

A hell of a lot more is about to follow…

298. somethoughts - March 24, 2013


Many others also, I have never seen someone get so upset over something as beautiful as Eve showing her beautiful body. It is art, just like David (Michelangelo). The stance is even similair. Film is art.

Judge the scene not the trailer, Eve is very beautiful, stop being a hater and love thyself.

299. somethoughts - March 24, 2013


I hear this all the time from new people who come to USA and Canada and their belief and value system is different than their adopted country.

You have to accept that not everyone will share your ethics, morality or religous beliefs. You cannot tell someone that is a vegetarian to eat meat and vice versa, you cannot tell someone your religion or beliefs is truth and theirs is false. You can belive what you choose to believe but to force your opinions and morality onto others is WRONG.

You do not like females or males showcasing their bodies to the public, such as Victorias Secret, Playboy etc. as you feel they are being treated like objects or that it is sexist. Not everyone will agree with you, sexuality is part of being human. Some people make good money showcasing their assets, who are you to judge them or the people that enjoy looking at them? Not everyone is blessed with beauty or intellect, but everyone has a gift and what they do with their gift is up to them and the social bounderies set within the community or country they live in.

Alice Eve is a talented actress and her character is a scientist that helps Kirk resolve the John Harrison problem, stop focusing on a 2 second image you saw in a International Trailer not meant for your demographic.

300. Trekkiegal63 - March 24, 2013

You’ve ascertained that sex sells.

Okay, that’s true enough. History proves that. But does it for movies…

According to statistics found on in the years 2009 (when the last ST film came out) and 2010, more women, statistically bought movie tickets then men. In 2011 and 2012 that number evened out to 50/50.

So let’s think about that a moment. Women make up at least half of the movie going demographic, sometimes more. Now I can hear your rebuttal to this before you say it. ‘That’s probably because of things like “Twilight”. For which I reply: Nope. Guess again.

According to, romances or romantic comedies don’t even make the top five box office grossing movies. Those would be: 1. Comedy at 23.48%, 2. Adventure at 20.03% 3. Drama at 17.63% 4. Action at 16.81% and 5. Thriller/Suspense at 8.12%.

In 2011 the highest grossing film was Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2. In 2012, The Avengers. So far, for 2013 Oz Great and Powerful holds that record (which, we hope, Star Trek breaks).

So to sum up: woman make up at least 50% of the movie ticket purchasing population, sometimes more. And films usually associated with gender related stereotypes when it comes to interests aren’t in fact a reality when it comes to numbers.

Thus a shot of Alice Eve in her underwear would actually only work for 50% (some years less) of the movie going population (that’s assuming all 50% of the male movie going population would be drawn in by such childish marketing) while potentially alienating 50% or more of the movie going population because I’m here to tell you right now? I’m not the only one who noticed the trailer objectified Alice Eve. noted it in their write up of the trailer, as did,,, and

In fact, had this to say (

The new Star Trek international trailer arrived online this morning and it’s fantastic stuff – except for one shot, which feels wholly unnecessary. Can you guess what it is?

(image of Alice Eve here)

Can anyone give me a valid reason why that shot is in the trailer? Apart from continuing the dated costume department traditions of the TV series. Or getting teenage boys excited about possible sex in the movie…

So what can we conclude in all this? The shot might actually have the reverse effect of its intended purpose. Especially considering that the Oscars were less than a month ago and the controversy surrounding Seth MacFarlane’s exceedingly sexist and poor taste in jokes has yet to die down.

Not exactly garnering the right kind of attention here.

301. Exverlobter - March 24, 2013

Uhura was shown in her underwear in the 2009 Trailer and nobody was alienated by that.

302. GeneR's libido - March 24, 2013

Let me just say, that I am ecstatically happy most of you people have no input whatsoever into making or marketing Star Trek movies.

303. Trekkiegal63 - March 24, 2013

Assertion 2 – You said that the harmful effects of objectification on women do not apply to film, only advertising or the modeling industry…

Not true. Found a nifty site called Celebrities Height and Weight ( and let’s just say it was a rather eye opening experience.

Now before, when I listed actresses who I thought were almost painfully too thin, I was just going off the top of my head. But here you go, here are actresses who have worked within the past few years, as you previously requested:

Cameron Diaz 5 feet 8.5 inches / 173.99 cms 114.64-125.66 lbs (what her healthy target weight should be 146 lbs).

Charlize Theron 5 feet 9.5 inches / 176.53 cms 125.66-136.69 lbs (healthy target weight = 150)

Gwyneth Paltrow 5 feet 9 inches / 175.26 cms 110.23-121.25 lbs (heathy target weight = 150)

Jennifer Garner 5 feet 8 inches / 172.72 cms 110.23-121.25 lbs (healthy target weight = 146)

Sandra Bullock 5 feet 7 inches / 170.18 cms 110.23-121.25 lbs (healthy target weight = 143)

Kristen Stewart 5 feet 4 inches / 163 cms 103.62-108.03 lbs (healthy target weight = 133)

There are more of course, oh so much more, but for time and size constraints I wont list them.

Conclusion: Film, as well as advertising, magazines and television, presents women below ideal weight, thus contributing to the influence of unhealthy idealized body images.

304. Exverlobter - March 24, 2013

None of those actresses is unhealthy thin. In contrast obesity is still one the most problematic health issues in the USA.

305. Trekkiegal63 - March 24, 2013

Assertion 3: You claimed that it would be impossible to add any other context to Carol Marcus in a trailer.

According to, the second highest box office grossing Star Trek film after ST2009 is ST4 at $133,000,000 world-wide (keep in mind that was in 1986, so back then that was considered a huge success, especially considering it only cost $24,000,000 to make).

Let’s look at that trailer, shall we?

Did you see what wasn’t in that trailer? An underwear shot.

Did you see what was? Both Uhura and Dr. Gillian Taylor doing their jobs.

Imagine that.

Now I know what you’re going to say… you’re going to say ‘but Abrams is trying to appeal to a wider audience’.

Okay then, we’ve already established that last year The Avengers was the biggest box office grossing movie. Let’s look at that trailer:

Know what wasn’t in that trailer? An underwear shot.

Know what was? Black Widow kicking ass.

In 2011 the biggest box office grossing movie was Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2. Trailer:

Know what wasn’t in that that trailer? An underwear shot.

Know what was? Hermione participating in some great action sequences.

Conclusion: All of the above trailers featured a larger than average cast of characters, yet they gave their female protagonist plenty of opportunity to establish context.

In addition, the latter two held their year, respectively. Without objectification.

306. Exverlobter - March 24, 2013


Wow, that thing really pisses you off. Cool down.
Are you jealous??

307. Trekkiegal63 - March 24, 2013

Lastly, assertion 4, you claim that shots of scantily clad women is absolutely okay, with no negative impact on perceptions.


A recent news report on CNN entitled “Men see bikini-clad women as objects, psychologists say” pretty much debunks that little theory of yours quite nicely.



A supplementary study on both male and female undergraduates found that men tend to associate bikini-clad women with first-person action verbs such as I “push,” “handle” and “grab” instead of the third-person forms such as she “pushes,” “handles” and “grabs.” They associated fully clothed women, on the other hand, with the third-person forms, indicating these women were perceived as in control of their own actions. The females who took the test did not show this effect, Fiske said.

That goes along with the idea that the man looking at a woman in a bikini sees her as the object of action, Fiske said.

The findings are consistent with previous work in the field, and resonate, for example, with the abundance of female strip clubs in comparison to male strip clubs, said Dr. Charles Raison, psychiatrist and director of the Mind/Body Institute at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Raison was not involved in the study.

Conclusion: gratuitous nudity does indeed alter perception. And women being seen as an object? Not a good thing.

Reply if you must (I have no doubt you will, and that you and others are going to be fairly busy thinking about ways to rationalize against everything I just posted) but this is the last time I post to this thread. I feel I’ve made my point. And I don’t really want to get into another angry place… this weekend, anyway. ;)

308. Carl Geffers - March 24, 2013

I haven’t read all the comments, so excuse me if somebody already posted something like my idea.
So here is my theory about Cumberbatch’s character: he’s an augment or an android and the first of his kind, designed by starfleet (especially by carol marcus (after all she is a pretty good scientist) and her admiral father) for mass production. But the project was put on hold and all of the augments/androids were frozen/deactivated and put into storage (the coffins) except for Harrison and now he is trying to free them – “isn’t there anything you wouldn’t do for your family?” and “Your Commanders have comitted a Crime and I cannot forgive.”.
This story would make a lot sense with the Original Series depicting artificial life forms quite often and the political comment Star Trek is known for – in this case slave labor and the creation of a cheap work and military force. Abd thus possibly laying the groundwork for the war with the Klingons (who would naturally want to fight other warriors with Harrison’s skills) in the third movie.

309. crone - March 24, 2013

Just watched this again. Does anyone else think that in the underwear pic of Carol Marcus there is something odd about her stance? I think she looks like an android- something about the way she is standing coupled with the way her eyes look. It’s odd. Something seems off. Maybe it is just me. I’ve been told that I am odd and off any number of times. But seriously, there is something oddly unfocused about her expression. Has this already been discussed to death somewhere?

310. Keachick - March 24, 2013

#309 – Yes, she has a bit of a stunned and wtf expression. I think it would be how you might look if you had been transported from one place to another without your knowledge/consent…

The wearing of clothing does not necessarily mean you are in more or less control. Perceptions based on such faulty premises need modifying…so sick of this stuff.

311. Trek in a Cafe - March 24, 2013

Hard to believe this is still going on!!!

Trekkiegal63 + Keachick are spot on, fellow gentlemen.

There is no way Alice Eve did that scene without her agent making sure of each and every way that shot could be used before the film was released.

So while she likely “objectified” herself — this means including this shot has to be a long calculated decision by the producers.

We are talking of millions of dollars devoted to promoting this product, and nothing is created by accident. Could you imagine JJ saying, “hey I had this idea last night, Alice…?”

And even more likely, nothing has been released without having been tested on audiences somewhere.

312. Exverlobter - March 24, 2013

If the notorious sexist Gene Roddenberry would have seen Alice Eve in her underwear he probably would have said:

Go for it; Baby!

313. Johnny - March 25, 2013

@Trekkiegal — I don’t care if you you’re done posting… I’m going to respond anyways. Again, I think I’ve been very cordial, and am just trying to have an honest debate here. Truly, there is no ill will here… so I’m sorry if my opinion… my side of the argument is getting you so upset. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not sexist, and I certainly don’t treat anyone as sex objects. But I also believe that there is nothing wrong with showing the human body, male or female, on film, especially if done tastefully. We see bodies in real life. Why should films be restricted to covering up their actors in every scene?

Point by point:

1. “Woman make up at least 50% of the movie ticket purchasing population, sometimes more”


But this isn’t true for Star Trek. Traditionally, more men watch Star Trek than women. Unless you can prove to me that more women than men bought tickets for ST09, specifically, you don’t have a point, here. Not to mention that this was an International Trailer for Star Trek, not a domestic one.

2. “Not true. Found a nifty site called Celebrities Height and Weight ( and let’s just say it was a rather eye opening experience.”


I’m not entirely sure where you’re getting the “healthy target weight” from, because it’s not on that website. But I’ll *assume* that you’re going by a calculated “Body Mass Index” — aka the BMI. Now the problem with the BMI, is that it is widely known to be a flawed statistic. It doesn’t really take into account fat to muscle ratio. Therefore, the BMI is at best a general… or even vague guideline as to what your “healthy weight” should be. In fact, according to my own BMI, I’m actually underweight. However, I’ve talked to my doctor many times about this, and they have assured me that I am perfectly healthy.

The bottom line here is, I don’t think any of the actresses you listed above are underweight… and I think most people would agree with me on this. And I think they’d also agree that Alice Eve doesn’t look underweight in the trailer.

3. Do you see trailers like STIV anymore? Nope. Audiences today want fast paced, slick, and stylish action. That’s what sells science fiction films to the masses. STIV was a fish-out-of-water comedy, whereas Star Trek Into Darkness is a sci-fi action film (and a political thriller, by the looks of it). Yes, the J.J. Abrams versions are action films… you guys should get used to that. That’s what Paramount wanted, and that’s what they got. They are action films… but action films that retain the essence and heart of Star Trek. Also, I didn’t see Dr. Taylor doing her job in that trailer. She seemed like a generic “girl along for the ride” character.

As for the other trailers you mentioned… they didn’t have underwear shots because there weren’t any in the movies themselves. There was no place for it in The Avengers, because there wasn’t any romance, or any other context for it. It was a nonstop action flick. If they had chosen to highlight the relationship between Black Widow and Hawkeye, there could have been one. All Scarlett Johannsson did in that trailer was kick ass in a skintight leather suit. We didn’t get to see her intelligence or personality. By your own definition, isn’t that objectification? Same with Harry Potter — the characters are just kids… it’s not like they’re going to be having sex. Although you will notice that they found excuses to get Harry shirtless in several of the films.

Meanwhile, it makes total sense for Kirk to have a love interest in Star Trek Into Darkness. Sexuality is a part of romance, so naturally, we’re going to see some underwear shots. And it is natural to put them in a trailer… because sex sells, for both genders. Again, you’re ignoring my point that we have seen plenty of shirtless MEN recently in trailers. Thor. Captain America. Bond. Twilight. Magic Mike.

4. As far as men viewing women in bikinis as “objects”, of course they do! As I, and others have pointed out… this is human nature. This is how we are. Men gawk at the female body, and women gawk at the male body. Evolution isn’t going to change this. There’s no way we’re ever going to “progress” away from this. Eliminating sexual attraction from human life would be ridiculous — and sounds like it could be the plot of a dystopian sci-fi flick, an episode of Twilight Zone… or dare I say it… an episode of Star Trek Original Series or Next Generation.

So overall, my main point here is that there is nothing wrong with men or women showing skin on film if the context calls for it. Sexual attraction is a part of human nature… so it’s perfectly acceptable to portray this on film. Film reflects life. It’s as simple as that. PLENTY of real life relationships start off because a couple is attracted to the physical attributes of each other. If they aren’t sexually attracted, it’s usually a “no go”, isn’t it? But for a relationship to LAST… their personalities need to gel. Plenty of men come for the breasts, but stay for the lady. And plenty of women come for the muscles and stay for the man.

If women (or men) see a body onscreen, and are somehow offended or “damaged” by that… then it is my position that they already have some body image issues, and/or other psychological problems. Filmmakers are not trying to send subliminal messages to the viewer telling them to “look like this”. They’re simply conveying the beauty of their characters. And yes, so we can gawk at them.


314. Johnny - March 25, 2013

Oh, one more thing I meant to address:

Why do you think women wear bikinis?

It’s to show off their bodies! They WANT to draw attention to themselves. They want men to be attracted by that image. If they are truly wearing a swimsuit because they are “at the beach”, then wouldn’t a one-piece suit suffice?

Nope. They are putting themselves out there, for all to see. They’re objectifying themselves. They’re proud of their bodies, and aren’t afraid to show it. It’s a conscious choice. Same goes for actresses. They can choose their parts… and can often have a say in wardrobe. It is their choice to disrobe.

315. Curious Cadet - March 25, 2013

@310. Keachick,
“The wearing of clothing does not necessarily mean you are in more or less control. Perceptions based on such faulty premises need modifying”

Female Commander: Excuse me ensign, please get me the duty reports for the day.
Male Ensign: Excuse me MISS, what gives you the authority to order those reports?
Female Commander: I’m a commander.
Male Ensign: Prove it.
Female Commander: Look, I’m wearing a miniskirt with no sleeves, I don’t have any place to carry identification. But I am a superior officer.
Male Ensign: Not from where I’m standing.
Female Cmmander: Damit Ensign, this is insubordination!
Male Ensign: Not without rank it isn’t.
Female Commander: Don’t you know who I am?
Male Ensign: No. Not yet. But damn you’re sexy in that uniform.

316. Curious Cadet - March 25, 2013

@314 Johnny,
“Why do you think women wear bikinis?”

So its the shooter, not the gun? Context Johnny.

You generally don’t see women wearing bikinis at the mall, or the grocery store, definitely not in the office place, school, or other places deemed inappropriate by society. The beach sees both sexes peacocking for each other, it’s equal opportunity. And there’s also comfort to consider as well. It’s generally hot at the beach and people want to wear as little clothing as the law will allow.

Nothing wrong with being proud of one’s bodies. But as I live at the beach I would question the motivation of pride in some bikini wearing cases. Desiring attention, or even comfort, is more likely the goal. Showing skin equates with attracting the attention of the opposite sex. They objectify themselves because they know it will draw the attention of men. Where did they get this idea? First hand experience, sure, but the see it every time they turn on the TV, watch a mainstream movie, surf the Internet, or scan the magazines at the checkout line of the supermarket. These women assume if they attract the attention of men with their bodies, then the men will get to know them and a true relationship will form. But that rarely happens in such situations, it’s fantasy. Boys sit on the beach shamelessly ogling women’s bodies, rarely approaching or making intimate contact, because they aren’t women, they’re objects of their desire there for their entertainment. Where do they get the idea this is OK behavior? Why does the lack of clothing permit this change in behavior? Surely not the plethora of skimpily clad women in media presented for the sole purpose of male titilation. It must be the women’s fault for dressing provocatively knowing what effect it will have on men, because you know “boys will be boys”. One could say they are asking for it …

317. somethoughts - March 25, 2013

This made me laugh and made me think of some serious posters who are part of the pc brigade.

318. somethoughts - March 25, 2013


Tribes with no television, internet etc. wear little to nothing because they are proud of their bodies and are not told to hide their beauty. They are free and not oppressed by different religions, morals or ethics who tell them it is shameful and they should cover up.

319. Trekkiegal63 - March 25, 2013

I know I said I wasn’t going to post to this thread again, but another visitor to this site emailed a link to me (and thank you, you know who you are, for coming forward – I am grateful I’ve posted my email to this site before and please note to any other reader, if you have something to contribute but don’t feel like getting involved in this mess, please share it with me. My email is that I felt needed to be shared and that this thread was the best place to do it as the conversation is still ongoing. Please note that I’m not addressing it to any one person, but to those concened by the issues associated with the topic at hand.

That APA (American Psychological Association) has a task force against the sexualization of girls in the media.

I know I’ve linked the APA’s report on objectification before, but I have not (indeed didn’t know it existed) posted info on the task force before.

For more information, the task force report is here:

The APA defines sexualization as this:

There are several components to sexualization, and these set it apart from healthy sexuality. Sexualization occurs when:

a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

person is sexually objectified — that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or

sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

All four conditions need not be present; any one is an indication of sexualization. The fourth condition (the inappropriate imposition of sexuality) is especially relevant to children. Anyone (girls, boys, men, women) can be sexualized. But when children are imbued with adult sexuality, it is often imposed upon them rather than chosen by them. Self-motivated sexual exploration, on the other hand, is not sexualization by our definition, nor is age-appropriate exposure to information about sexuality.

The interesting thing about this page is that it goes into vivid detail about the negative impact of the sexualization of girls in media. While the issue of body image has been discused here, there are other, equally terrible, consequences as well.

More from the APA:

Psychology offers several theories to explain how the sexualization of girls and women could influence girls’ well-being. Ample evidence testing these theories indicates that sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality and attitudes and beliefs.

The APA goes on to list each of these, and go into considerable detail expanding on how and why each area is effected.

I encourage everyone who has participated in this debate, or even just lurked, to review the information provided by the APA on this subject as I feel the information is important. Thank you.

320. somethoughts - March 25, 2013

Prude is a good word to lookup also, it explains everything in this interesting debate.

321. Keachick - March 26, 2013

#314 Why do women wear bikinis?

Well, some women don’t. They wear one piece bathing suits.

I will tell you, from my own personal experience. I have worn both, as well as the modern two-piece where the bodice covers most of the torso. I have to say that I prefer a comfortable bikini and it is not because I have anything wonderful to show off for men to ogle… It is practical.

I go to the beach to swim and to sunbathe. I rarely go when the tide is not in… more material means that it will take longer to dry out. Sitting or lying in a wet bathing suit is not that pleasant. I want my body to air, to receive sun. It can’t do that if most of it is covered. In a bikini I am soon dry and warm. Applying sunscreen is also easier. Not so, if I am wearing the alternatives. If I get too hot, I either go back in the water, seek shade, put on a teeshirt.

So I shall now seek out a nice fitting bikini and will wear it on the beach or in the backyard or wherever, despite having a bit of a “mummy’s tummy” and thighs/legs that would never get seen on any catwalk, because I like my beach times, few that they tend to be. I don’t need nor want the approval or comments from the likes of Phil, Curious Cadet or anyone else, including other women, who have a problem with women simply doing what they need and want to do with their own bodies as human beings.

Trying to “modest” turns out to be such a crock.

322. somethoughts - March 26, 2013


Bravo :) is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.