New Uhura Star Trek Into Darkness Poster + Saldana Unsure About Spock/Uhura Future |
jump to navigation

New Uhura Star Trek Into Darkness Poster + Saldana Unsure About Spock/Uhura Future April 13, 2013

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

Paramount released a new domestic Star Trek Into Darkness character poster today – featuring Zoe Saldana as Uhura. You can check that out below plus also find out what Zoe thinks about Spock and Uhura’s long-term future as a couple.   



New Uhura Star Trek Into Darkness Character Poster

Today Apple revealed the first (of four) Star Trek Into Darkness character posters – featuring Zoe Saldana’s Uhura. Check it out.

Uhura domestic character poster for Star Trek Into Darkness (click to enlarge)

The Uhura character poster is the first of a series of four which will be revealed over the next few days. Paramount also did character posters for the 2009 Star Trek movie. The first set of four were done for Comic Con 2008 (Uhura, Spock, Kirk and Nero) with another set of four (Scotty, Sulu, McCoy and Chekov) released at the Las Vegas Star Trek con. In the fall of 2008 they released four teaser theater posters with Uhura, Spock, Kirk and Nero. And then in March of 2009 they released four more with McCoy, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov.

The first four character theater posters for 2009 Star Trek movie

Saldana Talks Uhura/Spock future in EW

Speaking of Saldana, she has a brief interview in the new issue of Entertainment Weekly magazine where she talks about the Uhura/Spock relationship. Saldana teases out the film show’s the pair still as a couple in the ‘middle’ of their relationship but she also hinted that the end may come:

It’s always interesting when you tell the story of how two people come to together and when you tell the story of how they end. But [the story] of how they’re living? That’s not as interesting, I guess, even though the middle part is what really matters. There were a lot of things for us to pick from, and there’s a lot [in the new film] for the to be tested by. Whether or not they stay together throughout this? That remains to be seen.

When pressed for more Saldana revealed she didn’t see a long-term future for the pair,  saying:

The reality is it doesn’t matter what they do when they are young. They’re still going to end up, we know, being like the characters in the [original 1960s] Gene Roddenberry series. If that’s the case, then they’re not going to be together forever, but to establish a history between them is beautiful.

Perhaps Saldana feels that even in a new timeline, fate will tear Spock and Uhura apart. 

Spock and Uhura are still together in "Star Trek Into Darkness" – but Saldana isn’t sure they have a long-term future

 More Into Darkness promos coming Sunday, Monday and Tuesday

There will be three more character posters debuted each morning for the next three days on Apple iTunes. And on Tuesday Apple will also have the first exclusive look at the new domestic Star Trek Into Darkness trailer.

Also tune into the MTV Movie Awards on Sunday to see a new domestic TV promo. Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto will also be presenting. And for even more Trek, the TOS "Arena" Gorn Captain (featured in the recent Shatner promo) will be on the red carpet at the MTV Movie Awards – promoting Star Trek: The Video Game

Thanks to Carol for EW tip.


1. Exverlobter - April 13, 2013

Too much posters!
Just one should be enough.

2. MJ - April 13, 2013

Yea, and why do we need ANOTHER trailer next week?????

3. Punkspocker - April 13, 2013

You are gorgeous Zoe! I want the Spock poster.

4. Trekboi - April 13, 2013

The more the better- get it out there

5. Ash - April 13, 2013

That doesn’t sound too hopeful does it? I kinda figured they might break up in this film. If they stay good friends I won’t be too sad. The thought of having a permanent couple on board never felt completely right to me anyways. I’m not a romantic type of gal, so this storyline never did much for me anyways. I also hope Kirk/Marcus doesn’t get too serious either. I want my badass women, but for once I’d kinda like it if they weren’t always someones GF. Just my opinion.

This doesn’t mean anything for sure anyways. They might still be together by the end of this film, but I’m thinking they break up somewhere along the line. Zoe’s dropped hints like this before, but this time she was pretty straight forward about it. We’ll know in a month I guess..

6. BiggestTOSfanever - April 13, 2013

I want another trailer, and more posters!

It will be sad if Spock and Uhura’s relationship ends.

7. Ash - April 13, 2013

PS I’d like a Bones poster!! You’ve had enough people ask so maybe you should try one yea? Please and thank you :) :)

8. Bob - April 13, 2013

Why are they pushing Uhura as the tertiary protagonist? Not that I have a problem with Uhura, but in TOS it was always the Kirk/Spock/McCoy trio we focus on. But Bones wasn’t on the cover of ST2009, and it’s Kirk/Spock/Uhura again on the US theatrical poster for Darkness. What gives?

9. Nony - April 13, 2013

“The reality is it doesn’t matter what they do when they are young. They’re still going to end up, we know, being like the characters in the [original 1960s] Gene Roddenberry series.”

Uh…I love you, Zoe, but I’m not sure you get the point of ‘alternate timeline’.

10. LizardGirl - April 13, 2013

Awesome! I hope they have the character posters as well as the regular ones at my theater opening week.

I was given a free Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol poster when I (accidently) went the night before opening day. Maybe I’ll get one of these for free! One can dream…

11. Anthony Pascale - April 13, 2013

With all marketing you have to think that everything we show here is really something made for promotions inside theaters. Domestically there have been two ‘teasers’ but still no ‘payoff’ or ‘theatrical trailer’…that comes next week.

The reason we have seen four trailers is that online we can see both int’l and domestic marketing – not everyone is viewing sites like this and get exposed to every bit of marketing.

12. I'mPaul - April 13, 2013

I just….don’t like her that much and I’m a little annoyed that because filmmakers today feel that they need to fill a role of “the girl,” that she’s simply “the girl.” I don’t mean to sound like a nutty fan when I say this, but all of the other actors are doing the best job they can to play a character as true to the originals as possible. The way her character is written and portrayed doesn’t even ATTEMPT to come close, and the amount of time that they seem to spend on her in the last film, which offered NOTHING other than “the girl,” element is just kind of irritating and obvious.

13. Red Dead Ryan - April 13, 2013

I, for one, will be glad to see the Spock/Uhura romance come to an end.

Much better for both to remain close friends ala TOS.

14. Mark - April 13, 2013

@I’mPaul- yea I think that’s why they’re suddenly trying to make her seem like a badass now in this film. We’ll just have to wait and see if people buy it.

15. Commodore Adams - April 13, 2013

Meh Uhura poster is boring, and I have little interest in the development of their relationship, I think it was a mistake from the beginning.

The Enterprise falling poster is spectacular, im looking forward to the domestic trailer next week.

16. MJ - April 13, 2013

It this alternate universe. Kirk, Spock, Uhura are now the big three, with McCoy still being very relevant as well. Whine about it forever if you must, but it is not going away. And this is a much better reflection of a modern culture that the three white male grouping from 50 years ago.

This ain’t changing guys. Make you peace with it, or go to your grave’s bitching out it. It’s your choice, but they aren’t going to change it.

17. Commodore Adams - April 13, 2013

I love that roughly 50% of the votes love the domestic poster and 11% don’t, just goes to show the small percentage of “bitter nancy’s” lol

I am sure the 11% are the people who aren’t fans of the new movies…or any other series other than TOS lol.

18. John Ward - April 13, 2013

CCoyI grew up in the 60s so I know my original Star Trek but. I have loved the others too and found it interesting how they all found ways to refer back to the original series. Now we have those characters back but I really do not see where the altered time line would have chanvged things much except for Jim going ln the Enterprise first instead of the Farragut and Scotty having a pet tribble a head of time or Captain Pike’s destiny tuurning out for the better. I doubt if The Next Generation. or the others future was changed much. Jim might still be alive then like Admiral MCcoy is so there’s always possibilities as Spock prime said. Enjoy.

19. Curious Cadet - April 13, 2013

@5 Ash,
“I also hope Kirk/Marcus doesn’t get too serious either. I want my badass women, but for once I’d kinda like it if they weren’t always someones GF.”

This kind of reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where George gets engaged thinking a Jerry is getting married too. Then Jerry tells him he’s broken up with his girlfriend leaving George holding the bag.

While Zoe may have come off that way in the previous film, my hope is she puts that perception to bed once and for all in this one. And I think there’s less of that likely with Eve’s character.

Isn’t it interesting though, that Spock can be a badass and be somebody’s boyfriend without any negative repercussions?

It seems to me that in a story focused on the male characters, that the only way to introduce women is to drive them in like a wedge in the only slot available, which is as a love interest. So it’s interesting that we get to know Uhura through her increased interaction with Spock, which in turn gives her greater presence and opportunity.

The reality is that Abrams could have made Uhura anything he wanted in this timeline, much as he has with Chekov. She could have jumped to the drilling platform with Kirk, but that’s not how Abrams sees the world. Instead it was three men. Did you see any women even volunteer they had combat experience for the assignment? I would have liked to have seen Uhura established in a ships ops capacity, like Data, who was responsible for more than just communications, or god forbid, tactical and/or security like Worf (who often handled communications as well). Something other than what the original Uhura was limited to in 1966, despite the actual importance of such positions in the military as Roddenberry knew. However, you never saw a man doing that job as I recall.

20. vva - April 13, 2013

#2 Because domestically we’ve only had 1 teaser and a short kids teaser. We haven’t had a full length trailer yet. The international market has but we haven’t.

21. Red Dead Ryan - April 13, 2013

In my opinion, making Spock a “badass” flies in the face of what the character is supposed to be. He’s supposed to be rational, balanced, logical, and (relative to humans) emotionless. He’s the counterweight to Dr. McCoy’s heartfelt passion and exhuberance.

Yeah, I’m fine with making Kirk and Uhura “badasses”, as that kind of makes more sense. Spock, even in light of the near annihilation of his own people, should retain some of his classic characteristics. He was created to be an observer of humanity.

22. Daniel Broadway - April 13, 2013

@ 11 Good point, Anthony.

23. bob - April 13, 2013

@MJ I was hardly “whining” about it, I’m just curious as to why they chose this route as opposed to sticking with the original three.

24. JohnRambo - April 13, 2013

5. Ash

calm down lol

25. Anthony Pascale - April 13, 2013

Saldana is used more prominently in marketing to both attract guys who like to look at girls and to attract girls who want to know there is something for them in this movie too. It isn’t rocket science guys.

But ST2009 Uhura is not thrust into some more prominent position vs McCoy. In general I think Orci and Kurtzman did a very good job in ST2009 of giving each character unique role in the film. Indications are STID will be the same.

26. Ash - April 13, 2013


Did I say something that was worked up? All I did was comment on Zoe’s interview and give my opinion on it. Hardly worthy of a “calm down”, especially when we know how hairy things can actually get around here.

27. Bonesfan - April 13, 2013

5) Ash, you have my full support. I could not agree with you more!

28. Godsgod - April 13, 2013

The posters are bad. There is not one real movie poster there! Only a lot of trials!

29. Mad Mann - April 13, 2013

Well, it’s better than the 2009 character posters.

30. Jack - April 13, 2013

It’s just advertising, folks. I still disagree that Uhura’s taken McCoy ‘s place. Did Saavik take McCoy’s place in Trek II? The argument seems to focus on Saldana being on posters. News flash: they put attractive women on posters. McCoy was on two main posters for the TOS movies (IV and VI) — one had the rest of the cast too.

They used Nichols and Grace Lee Whitney in promo shots for TOS too.

31. NCC-73515 - April 13, 2013

That’s a very strange glove – what’s its purpose? XD

32. boborci - April 13, 2013

25 Anthony

Thanks, pal!

33. MJ - April 13, 2013

@21 “Yeah, I’m fine with making Kirk and Uhura “badasses”, as that kind of makes more sense. Spock, even in light of the near annihilation of his own people, should retain some of his classic characteristics. He was created to be an observer of humanity.”

Agreed. I suspect by the 3rd film he will be more of that Spock. Remember through in TOS (as seen in The Cage) that in Spock’s early years he was more emotional — and these movies reflect that.

34. Grand Marshall Scaldac - April 13, 2013

OK effort

35. Jack - April 13, 2013

Btw, I meant I don’t think Uhura took McCoy’s place. She’s just on the posters. I agree with Anthony here… and, apparently, Bob.

36. Jemini - April 13, 2013

well, if what she said is true and everything will be just like TOS I’m done with star trek reboot then. and I’m sorry writers but nothing will convince me that you didn’t cave under fan pressure, I thought you wanted this to be different and you were proud of the changes you have made.
I was wrong it seems.

If I wanted to watch TOS I’d watch TOS.
I don’t see the point of this being AU and keep watching if I already know how it will end.

37. K-7 - April 13, 2013

You are misspelling “Gemini”

38. MJ - April 13, 2013

@35. I think the Big 3 is now the Big 4. If you, Bob, Anthony and others want to pretend it it still just the Big 3, be my guest. But any objective person can see that we have the Big 4 here now.

39. Jemini - April 13, 2013

ps: of course I was one of those that liked S/U and they’re one of the reasons I still wanted to see the movie. But now I don’t see the point
I was intrigued by this being an AU but it seems it’s not AU and you’re just retconning TOS?
what a waste…
how sad.

40. Mark - April 13, 2013


You’re gonna stop watching the films if Spock/Uhura break up?? That’s just as pathetic as all those whiners who said they were done with ST when they first got together.

I’ve heard s/u fangirls cry about what would happen if they break up, but I didn’t think they would just quit watching because of that. And IF they do break up, who are you to say that wasn’t JJ and the writers plan to begin with?

41. Jemini - April 13, 2013

38: don’t worry, it will be the big 3 again because everything is supposed to be like TOS eventually.
I guess tho, that McCoy will never make it to the posters since he had never been there in the prime verse either…

42. Khan 2.0 - April 13, 2013

i did not know Beyonce did a concert on Ceti Alpha V

43. Buzz Cagney - April 13, 2013

#16 I’ll bitch about it a while longer, MJ. Maybe not until i’m brown bread, but definitely a while longer yet. ;)
Besides, from the sounds of it good sense is about to prevail and nUhura is
gona be heading back to the switchboard soon.
if I want crappy love stories between crew members i’ll watch TNG, thanks very much.

44. Jemini - April 13, 2013

40. Mark – April 13, 2013

I don’t think I have the time and energy and deside to explain why breaking them up could be my reason for being “done” with this fandom
especially not in this site, tbh.

“You’re gonna stop watching the films if Spock/Uhura break up?? That’s just as pathetic as all those whiners who said they were done with ST when they first got together. ”

I don’t think it would be “pathetic” for people to decide to stop watching the movies (or not even watch the sequel after reading spoilers they don’t like) if those they don’t fit their expectations. Be it either them wanting the romance or not or killing one of the characters, there could be a ton of reasons why people may get disappointed.

45. crazydaystrom - April 13, 2013

For some reason this Uhura poster is my favorite one yet. I’m not a big Zoe fan but I really like this poster. I saw it on another site with three other new character posters, each with a different ‘signature’ color. Side by side as a banner they looked pretty cool.

46. WillH85 - April 13, 2013

I seriously hope they end the Spock/Uhura thing. Felt forced and just thrown in there in the first movie.

47. Khan 2.0 - April 13, 2013

@41 – Bones just isnt phat enough to make it on to the posters

48. Khan 2.0 - April 13, 2013

forget the Charlies Angles, Khan walking hot coals, Enterprise Down ones – They should make this Uhuru one the MAIN poster around the planet….people should know when they go to see a star trek film they will be seeing a slimmed down Beyonce taking on the bad guys

49. Jemini - April 13, 2013

and really, 40. Mark , you make it seems that people don’t have the right to get disappointed for any reason. Seriously, some people don’t like the romance, others do. Some will get pleased, others don’t. What is to understand.
I’m sure there are people here that wouldn’t feel like watching the movie is one of the actors had said that Kirk and Spock won’t have the friendship they had in tos, eventually no matter what happens in this movie, or that one of the main characters might get killed.
But somehow if it’s about the ones liking the S/U romance (that is already here btw, it’s not about us expecting to see a romance that will never happen and then complain because it doesn’t e.g. slash shippers) this makes us irrelevant and pathetic and it can’t be a reason that makes some people want to watch the movie or not but other things can.

50. BH - April 13, 2013


Star Trek was about breaking open doors, and this film features a black, female heroine. So what.

In. A. Very. Real. Way. That. Is. True. To. The. Spirit. Of. The. Show.

One chunk of “fans” loses their minds over Carol Marcus in skivvies, and now this. Stay out of the house for a few extra hours the day you see this film, it might be even more interesting.

51. Khan 2.0 - April 13, 2013

i am j/k of course – actually the Uhuru poster is one of the best character posters ive seen for a film and if i was a non trekkie or didnt know what trek was even i think itd get my attention

52. MJ - April 13, 2013

Jemini and Mark,

You both are completely missing the point here. Regardless of whether they break up or not, Uhura is one of the majors here now. This is the era of the Big 4 in Star Trek, with Uhura now firmly entrenched as one of the four major characters in nuTrek. This is not going to change even if she and Spock stop doing the nasty.

53. Khan 2.0 - April 13, 2013

i like the fact Trek is getting these character posters – i think they started with Xmen back in 2000 (although i may be wrong) so its way cool (or phat) that Trek is getting these type of posters just like any other blockbuster today (it still feels strange to me that Trek is considered a summer blockbuster series now – just like back in the 80s :)

54. MJ - April 13, 2013

@50 “Hypocrisy. Star Trek was about breaking open doors, and this film features a black, female heroine. So what. In. A. Very. Real. Way. That. Is. True. To. The. Spirit. Of. The. Show.”

Exactly. This is the 21st Century. The new “Big 4″ train has left the station, and if some here don’t want to be on board, then I feel kind of sorry for them.

55. Khan 2.0 - April 13, 2013

Star Trek
created by Gene Roddenberry


Also starring


56. Mark - April 13, 2013


No man I get that Uhura is a major character now and it makes sense these days. She’s a woman and they need that to sell the movie to a wider, modern audience. As long as they give Bones the attention he deserves as well then I have no problem at all with a big 4.

If some people only watched for spock/uhura and will leave if they break up then fine. See ya later. I’m sure if they do break up it will be respectful and make sense to the story, but I expect some fans to whine about it just like those who did when it first started.

57. omegaman - April 13, 2013

56 Mark

Well said.

58. Dee - lvs moon surface - April 13, 2013

YAY Uhura! ;-) :-)

59. Joe - April 13, 2013

I am disappointed that McCoy seems to have been demoted from being part of the Star Trek trio but when the person they replaced him with looks like Zoe Saldana, I can almost forgive it.

60. MJ - April 13, 2013

@56. OK, yep!

61. AyanEva - April 13, 2013

I finally learned to tolerate Spock/Uhura and now I’m actually a teeny tiny bit sad that they might break up eventually…which is weird because I spent four years wishing they would. lol

I’m excited to see how these characters’ relationships differ and how things will shake out in the end because I don’t know. That’s the best part for me. I have no idea what’s going to happen and if we’ll end up with Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Uhura or some variation of any combination or none of the above in the end. I wasn’t always OK with that but over the last four or five months I’ve unexpectedly become very excited by the prospect or not knowing what to expect.

I’m excited to see the rest of the character posters. I wonder who all will get one?

62. Jemini - April 13, 2013

Spock and Uhura were NOT in a relationship in the other reality.
Zoe’s statement suggests that she doesn’t understand the whole AU premise because this being AU means, or at least it should, that we can’t use TOS (aka the other reality ) to know in advance with absolutely certainty how things will end. How they can even be the same people when they’re already so different?
Where is the fun then? What’s the point of the AU then? Why should I care about the journey if she is already telling me that everything will get back to how it was in tos and nothing will change even if vulcan is gone and a lot of things are already different.

Is is so hard to understand that saying that everything will be totally like TOS anyway is off-putting for the ones that like this precisely because it’s different and opens up to possibilities that weren’t explored in the other reality?
I guess if what Zoe said is true then the Kirk/Bones friendship that I also liked in the 2009 movie will get minimized as well (well, deluded from me anyway to think that Bones had had chance to remain Kirk’s best friend when obviously the friendship has to be the K/S one only)

63. MJ - April 13, 2013

@62. Come on know, Zoe is just the actress playing the part. She doesn’t write the character’s part or determine her future, so she is just pulling dumb idea out of her ass when she makes these statements that you are getting all worked up about.

You are stressing for no reason. Of course she is going to be one of the major players still even if thing with Spock cools down by the end of this movie. I have no doubt of that, and I am not worried about Zaldana’s uninformed opinion on this.

Please note that most actors and actresses are not really smart people. There are exceptions of course.

64. New Horizon - April 13, 2013

I haven’t found the posters for this movie to be as engaging or inspiring as Trek 2009.

This poster….

…was simply brilliant.

Are the same people making the posters for this movie? What happened? The posters I’ve seen so far are generic and uninspired. They look like every other movie poster out there. Is Trek 2013 going to be generic like every other movie?

65. MJ - April 13, 2013

@64, Never liked that poster. Looks like what a dropping a model of the Enterprise into a glass of milk would like like if you were having a few tokes.

66. Iva - April 13, 2013

All the writers have achieved with this Uhura mess is to degrade Spock’s character.
It really doesn’t matter if the affair ends in the movie or not, he will always be just a basic no standards dudebro. Plenty of those around.

67. vantheman77 - April 13, 2013

Since this movie takes place in an alternate universe, I can see Spock and Uhura having a child named Tuvok.

68. Khan 2.0 - April 13, 2013

i wonder….when they finally perfect the FX tech of recreating yesterdays stars so its flawless and they make Star Trek movies again with the original cast in their 30s

will Bones still get sidelined in the posters?

i think so

69. Eric Holloway - April 13, 2013

#19 Actually you did see a man run the communications board, check out The Cage.

70. Khan 2.0 - April 13, 2013

@25 Anthony Pascale
Saldana is used more prominently in marketing to both attract guys who like to look at girls and to attract girls who want to know there is something for them in this movie too. It isn’t rocket science guys.

maybe the TNG films couldve done with putting Troi on the posters (esp Insurrection & Nemesis – those movie needed all the help it could get!)

71. Rick - April 13, 2013

@66-not gonna happen.

72. Eric Holloway - April 13, 2013

And Mirror, Mirror too…if I remember correctly.

73. Curious Cadet - April 13, 2013

@68 Eric Holloway,

And if you look closely you’ll see a woman sitting at the helm, as the second in command of the ship too. And that was the last time you ever saw that in TOS.

74. Khan 2.0 - April 13, 2013

actually Nemesis couldve done with doing some of these character posters. all the big movies in the 00s were doing them

75. Red Dead Ryan - April 13, 2013


“Since this movie takes place in an alternate universe, I can see Spock and Uhura having a child named Tuvok.”

Uh, no. Unless this Tuvok is completely unrelated to the “Voyager” character, it wouldn’t make sense at all.

The same Tuvok having two completely different sets of parents in two different timelines but all the while being the same character? Nope!

That would result in lame story plot, as well as a massive contradiction further requiring another lame retcon.

76. Khan 2.0 - April 13, 2013

AOTC, Die Another Day, & LOTR 2 all did them…i guess Paramount thought Nemesis would blow those last two away on the strength of it being star trek starring Prof X

77. Aurore - April 13, 2013

“The reality is it doesn’t matter what they do when they are young. They’re still going to end up, we know, being like the characters in the [original 1960s] Gene Roddenberry series. If that’s the case, then they’re not going to be together forever, but to establish a history between them is beautiful.”

Yeah, Yeah, right, sure “beautiful”, whatever…

Somewhere in the American countryside , someone must be smiling right now…I say “Not so fast mister!!!” ; let us see the movie first!


78. Phil - April 13, 2013

From a practical perspective, of course the relationship is going to end – this cast is under contract for one more movie, then they are moving on.

Uhura, as a communications officer, probably has some responsibilities at tactical and intelligence as well, in my opinion. Anyone who assumes she’s just there to answer the phone is deluding themselves. If she is spun off, I could easily see these responsibilities taking her away from Spock. The idea that she may be a spook is….intriguing..

It’s not an issue to have Uhura front and center, and in a relationship with Spock. It’s not likely to change. Complaining about it accomplishes nothing.

79. Kazza - April 13, 2013

“Something other than what the original Uhura was limited to in 1966 ”

There were plenty of times in the 60’s show where Uhura was expected to throw down with the boys. She clearly had all the same combat training as everyone else, and although she was treated like a lady, she was never treated like a girl. And she was certainly never treated like the token GF. It’s easy to assume that anything 2009 Trek did to elevate Uhura is a win for modern women, but that’s just not the case.

I think nUhura has been a step backwards for this character. I would have much preferred to have seen her elevated in the screenplay as perhaps one of the three who spacedived down to the drilling platform, rather than Spock’s clingy love-interest. It does her no favours to be seen distracted from her job because she’s worrying about her man, and it does Spock no favours to be seen snogging on the transporter pad when lives are in the balance.

I LOVE Zoe Saldana, but the way this franchise has forced her character down my throat is severely challenging that love. I don’t see what the new Kirk/Spock/Uhura trio brings to the franchise, apart from girly romance and fanboy fodder. And the posters?… are ridiculous. What is it with all these Trek characters clutching their guns. Is this Charlie’s Angels?

Karl Urban was the best thing about the first film and the Kirk/Spock/McCoy troika was the heart and soul of Star Trek. To see Bones sidelined to make way for adolescent fantasies is a crime against good storytelling.

80. Aurore - April 13, 2013

“…The question becomes how do you reconcile being in love with someone who might be, completely honest, completely reliable, completely loyal…you know…incredibly smart and logical. But also, to a fault, where suddenly maybe logic supercedes other things…” *

( Mr. Abrams)

Good question.

I liked the Uhura and Spock romance in the last movie, I’m curious to find out what is in store for them in the sequel….

(Links of interviews of Miss Saldaña and Mr. Abrams on the romance, if authorized, here):


81. Snugglepuff - April 13, 2013

I guess i’m the only one who doesn’t think shes hot

82. Jack - April 13, 2013

Well, MJ, she took over, partially, the part that would have traditionally gone to a guest love interest (in TOS) or to Saavik. I don’t think we saw enough of her in the last one to say she’s a main. Heck, Sulu and Scotty each had more screen time. As to this next one, we don’t know yet.

I think McCoy played the McCoy movie role — the Captain’s confidant. Yes, less so — but everybody’s part was truncated (Kirk and Spock really didn’t have much to say, compared to their original counterparts). I think the stuff we see Sulu do would have originally gone to Spock. The Chekov stuff would have gone to Scotty. And the Uhura stuff would have gone to the guest love interest — It certainly wouldn’t have gone to McCoy.

This big four stuff — what did Uhura really do? She got hit on (Kirk might have started that bar fight somehow anyway), she happened to be the roommate of a girl Kirk was sleeping with (so he could cheat on KM — progressive, feminist stuff :(), she heard a transmission and she’s seeing Spock. She’s mostly the love interest, with magical Hoshi Sato genius powers that we hear about but don’t see. Heck, in today’s Bond Moneypenny apparently started out as a kick-ass agent before becoming a 60s pining receptionist. Here Uhura gets to start out big before becoming, alas, the 23rd century switchboard operator she written as in TOS….

83. LizardGirl - April 13, 2013

There have always been romantic elements in Star Trek–shows and movies. There have always been love interests involving the main characters (Kirk, McCoy and yes Spock), and so on. So I’m surprised by the amount of dislike people have for this particular relationship dynamic!

But not everyone has to be a fan, I understand that and I won’t boycott the movie cause of something like that, nor will I browbeat anyone who dislikes it. But, I’m just honestly curious as to the reason behind the dislike.

I doubt whatever Spock/Uhura elements there are in the movie will completely overshadow the Star Trek experience. Yet when people KEEP bringing it up with this constant air of dislike…well, I think it makes it bigger than it really is. I’m with MJ on this. Don’t condemn it before watching and seeing how they develop the characters in this one.

84. Jack - April 13, 2013

“Don’t condemn it before watching and seeing how they develop the characters in this one.”

Agreed. This “Uhura shouldn’t be on a poster” and “Uhura shouldn’t be important” stuff scares me. A lot.

85. Keachick - April 13, 2013

The posters are improving – from voting with Not Really, onto OK and now Like it. I think this might be a good sign for me. I actually like the Uhura poster – I love her hair…

The Spock/Uhura relationship is much like any other. A lot of pressure is placed on the two individuals which can help to undermine, or otherwise, the health and longevity, or otherwise, of the relationship. I think that Spock and Uhura are bonded (in spirit). What physical realities may be manifest are subject as much to external factors as these two individuals are to their own needs and wants at any time.

86. Jack - April 13, 2013

PS. Where can I lobby to get any and all Cumberbatch/whoever shirtless scenes reinstated? Keachick — in with me? Maybe Pine has one?

BTW, It’s not really fair that it’s okay for me to do that, but if other guys joked around (sort of) about making sure Alice Eve’s underwear scene stayed in (because it’s awesome) — they’d be called sexist.

Promotion-wise, it seems like a no-brainer, you’d get crazy Men’s Health tie ins. And plenty of swooning on sites like Daily Mail, etc.

87. Curious Cadet - April 13, 2013

@78 Phil,
“The idea that she may be a spook is….intriguing.”

Be careful, someone might take this out of context … ;-)

88. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 13, 2013

If Spock and Uhura break up, I will be seriously miffed. But, I won’t cease being a trekkie over it.

I’ve been a trekkie since 1966. In TOS, I always preferred Uhura over Chapel (too clingy – get a grip on yourself, woman!), and I certainly thought there was chemistry there between Spock & Uhura. When I saw them together in the 2009 movie, I thought ‘yeah, that’s a nice touch and it works for me’.

If they break up I will be annoyed because I like the relationship, and the possibilities it had opened up to explore ‘the other’ from a different perspective. I will wonder whether any breakup was a result of those involved in making this movie backing away from the relationship as a ‘step too far’ and retreating back into safer territory. I will also be rather surprised, given the effort that has been put into the comics to highlight the depth of this relationship.

That said, my emotional reaction to a break up, and how any breakup is handled in the movie, would be only one aspect of what determines where this movie ends up on my personal scale of best to worst Star Trek movies.

I choose not to read too much into Ms Saldana’s comments; just as I choose to remain sceptical that the Enterprise is destroyed, or a main character killed off. We will all know soon enough and I intend not to lose any sleep over any of this until if and when such things come to pass.

89. Kazza - April 13, 2013

“I’ve been a trekkie since 1966. In TOS, I always preferred Uhura over Chapel (too clingy – get a grip on yourself, woman!)”

That’s interesting. You don’t see nUhura as “clingy”?

I must admit, that ‘first 9 minutes’ preview they played before The Hobbit where Uhura was standing on the Bridge with her hand over her mouth looking all girly and scared for her BF, and Kirk literally had to tell her to get back to her station to see if she can re-establish contact with Spock — was FacePalm! At least Chapel was able to continue to do her job, regardless of her affections for Spock. Treat him professionally when he was injured, etc.

Maybe that’s exactly what happens. Spock and Uhura ultimately just bring out the worst in each other as a couple, so they end it and just agree to be friends and colleagues. A bit soap-opera-y, but not unusual.

90. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 13, 2013

@89. Kazza

‘That’s interesting. You don’t see nUhura as “clingy”?’

Nope, not at all. From what I’ve seen she’s her own person and she stands up for herself. She’s there when she’s needed and she backs off when it’s necessary.

No two people will see the same scene play out and interpret it the same way. You saw Uhura going all girly and having to be reprimanded by Kirk. I saw Uhura reacting quite naturally to the prospect of Spock’s imminent death, and Kirk giving an order – as he would have given to any other communcations officer at that station at the time – to attempt to re-establish contact.

If this relationship does break up I hope it is handled maturely and NOT in a ‘soap-opera-y’ fashion. In my opinion, so far in the 2009 film and in the comics, this has been shown to be a mature relationship between two people who care deeply for each other, not a ‘teen’ romance. We have been told this relationship will be ‘tested’, and maybe that will be to the point where it breaks down. If it does, I don’t have to like it, but I’ll be more accepting of it if it’s handled properly.

91. AJ - April 13, 2013

I think the boys are now finally writing some classic “Star Trek.”

Kirk and the Enterprise and her crew have a relationship. Spock must become dedicated to his Captain, and (hopefully) Bones is there to clear the air when Kirk and Spock lock horns. Let the K/S mystery stuff stay in. It’s been part of the mythology since 1969.

There is a handful of TOS eps which are so epic in how they depict these relationships, plus TMP and the “trilogy” of flicks which faithfully carries them over. Time to kick-start those relationships in the JJverse.

92. Marja - April 13, 2013

Jemini, Obsessive, thanks for saying [even better] what I wanted to say!

Jack, I think some of us objected to Eve’s undies because in the preview we had DIRE WORDS DIRER SCENE DIRE SCENE DIRE SCENE DIRE PRONOUNCMENT – undies!!! – DIRE SCENE DIRE PRONOUNCMENT MASS DESTRUCTION. It was out of place and somewhat ridiculous, and we commented on that, and then a bunch of people started making sexist comments, and a bunch of us folks started disputing the sexists.

I want to emphasize a certain point here: the people who complain and argue about ship design and ST plots and who Harrison is – fine, argue away, but always remember these are FICTIONAL things. Sexism, on the other hand, is alive and regrettably flourishing, and is a real force real women deal with on a daily basis.

I, too, hope Ms Saldana was just blowing smoke. The writers and Abrams seemed pretty proud of what they had done with Spock/Uhura in ST2009 and if they back off because disgruntled old fans are miffed about Uhura being more than a “switchboard operator” and now “just a girlfriend” I will be very disappointed in them. Are they no longer proud of what they did?

Have the writers obeyed the fans who hate S/U? Have they adopted the mistaken belief, “Vulcans have no emotions”? Or have they listened to bitter old fans who think Uhura’s “gotten all uppity” and dared to supercede McCoy? (As if she should hustle on down to the ship’s galley, bake the Big Three some cookies and serve ’em up with a big ol’ subservient smile?)

Embittered “troika” folks should begin practicing the phrase, “The Quartet at the Center of Star Trek,” because that appears to be the new reality. Kirk and Spock and Uhura and McCoy are now the “quartet” instead of the old “trio”. Uhura serves as a sounding board for Spock as McCoy serves as Kirk’s conscience.

I for one hope the AU continues being an AU and does not “return” to the TOS universe. These characters have accumulated experiences so different from those of the characters in TOS, that they beg the question, what was the point of doing an AU in the first place?

If the whole AU is going to wind up as a “prequel” for the TOS universe I will be disappointed. A breakup between Spock and Uhura does not speak for the maturity of the characters: at the worst it speaks of writers giving up because some fans differ with their vision; or it speaks of jejeune characters giving up on each other instead of working through their issues and reaching a compromise like the mature pair I had hoped we were seeing.

I like the idea of a long-standing romantic relationship as opposed to the old nonsense of a “new girl” every week in TOS. Between that tomfoolery and the horribly written cling-on Chapel, I became early sensitized to sexism in Hollywood.

Isn’t it better to have a heroine young women can admire than yet another stereotypical woman who fits the sexist model? And one who, involved in a romantic relationship, is challenging, and equal to, her partner?

93. Bell - April 13, 2013

@92. Before you freak over the writers giving into what you call sexism or the spock/uhura “haters”, ever consider maybe them possibly breaking up was part if their plan the whole time? It’s obvious you like this couple. Cool, but instead if insisting that those who don’t love them are wanting Uhura in the kitchen baking maybe consider they just don’t feel the couple very much. I love strong women like Uhura, doesn’t mean I have to be a fan if the couple, and I’m not.

I for one wouldn’t mind seeing the events in this film as experiences that shape the crew into the people they are in TOS, but that’s my opinion.

94. Marja - April 13, 2013

and now “just a girlfriend” * and now MORE THAN “just a girlfriend” *

Sorry I didn’t proofread more carefully.

95. Glaceau - ST Fan - April 13, 2013

I find it interesting that Zoe is asked questions about the relationship in almost all of her Star Trek interviews– but these same interviewers seldom ask Zachary these same questions. I wonder why? Also, I will be extremely disappointed if the writers decide to turn everything back to the way it was in TOS. In an era of overdone remakes, and too many trips down comic book lane — this reboot version of Star Trek was/is a refreshing change for me because of its deviation from the original. This interview is a bit deflating. Not just because of the possible ending of an idea, but because the writers will have abandoned an element of an interesting and original narrative. I haven’t been to the movies in over two years because so many movies just seem so boring, uninteresting, and redundant. I have planned to go see STID–but this interview…. I guess I’ll know for sure on viewing day.

96. Iva - April 13, 2013

They ask her those same questions because that is all she is as a character. They can afford to ask more of other actors because other characters are there as people not as somebody’s proof they can get laid.

97. AJ - April 13, 2013


Remember the mantra:

“Get a life! It’s just a TV show!”

98. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 13, 2013

“Get a life! It’s just a TV show!”

To quote Homer Simpson; “That’s crazy talk”

LLAP ;-)

99. Lostrod - April 13, 2013


“Exactly. This is the 21st Century. The new “Big 4″ train has left the station, and if some here don’t want to be on board, then I feel kind of sorry for them.”

Yea, MJ, I get it. We now have a new “Big 4″. However, since none of the promotional material features McCoy – it’s a “New 3″.

I personally think expanding Uhura’s role is great. However, why not include McCoy AND Uhura in the posters?

And, no pity please. :)


100. Marja - April 13, 2013

So AJ, if you have a real life, what are you doing here? LOL

Iva, could you ease off the misogyny? I know Uhura’s just a character, but your attitude seems to go somewhere beyond critique of a movie. I guess Star Trek is a man’s universe for manly men.

101. Marja - April 14, 2013

Yeah, Bell, that “cookies” remark was targeted at the outright sexists, not the people who don’t like the couple. There are some people hereon who claim Uhura is just here as “proof somebody can get laid” and should “go back to the switchboard.” Wow.

There are people that don’t like the couple. There are people who do. There are people who argue passionately about the design of the Enterprise. There are people who don’t care.

I care about the Spock and Uhura relationship; you don’t. I get that. I’m just expressing my opinion about S/U and my “cookies” remark was – perhaps regrettably – not directed *by name* at certain individuals for certain remarks they have made.

Perhaps it’s always been part of the master plan to break up the couple. Perhaps the “Board” got a boatload of mail from S/U haters and those who think Uhura doesn’t belong in front, for whatever reason. Who’s ever going to know?

102. Jack - April 14, 2013

92.” Jack, I think some of us objected to Eve’s undies because in the preview we had DIRE WORDS DIRER SCENE DIRE SCENE DIRE SCENE DIRE PRONOUNCMENT – undies!!! – DIRE SCENE DIRE PRONOUNCMENT MASS DESTRUCTION. It was out of place and somewhat ridiculous, and we commented on that, and then a bunch of people started making sexist comments, and a bunch of us folks started disputing the sexists.”

I totally get that. I felt the exact same way.

103. LizardGirl - April 14, 2013

Okay, now I’m seeing some sexist comments.

FACT: A woman can be sexy and still be a professional. It’s not just one or the other.

Uhura, in both universes, is a very beautiful, smart and classy woman. She isn’t a woman who’s thrown away her femininity, but has embraced it. She’s also very proud of her professional accomplishments. So again, how is this Uhura so very different? She can’t balance a relationship and a career?

Also, I don’t get the attitude…”I don’t llike her (Zoe’s Uhura), I have NO IDEA WHY I don’t like her, I just don’t…”–huh? Does that make any sense? If you don’t like her, then there’s a reason. It may be a petty reason, but there’s a reason nontheless.

So all this ridiculous ruckus about whose on the freaking poster when we’re about a month way from seeing the movie is just absurd. And then trying to drag McCoy into this petty coldness bordering nastiness toward Uhura makes no sense. He’ll get his poster, don’t worry. I mean, we don’t even know what Kirk’s poster looks like.

Let’s try support the actors and actresses. They want us to be pleased with their work, so let’s not be bullies about it (ESPECIALLY whe we haven’t seen it yet). Let’s not be totally thankless.

104. Jack - April 14, 2013

103. They gave Sulu more to do — I don’t hear people complaining that he stole McCoy’s place. Maybe nobody wants any of these guys to have a love interest. I do like the point Zoe makes — maybe, had Uhura and Spock known each other 10 years before, they might have had some kind of relationship.

You know, love-interest-we’ll-never-see-again-for-the-sake-of-the-formula bugs me. I don’t think that’s what they did here. But just my opinion.

105. MJ - April 14, 2013

@99. Lostrod. You are confusing marketing materials with what will be in the movie. In the movie, like in Trek 2009, it will be the Big 4. Uhura is already part of the “Big 4″. Watch Trek 2009 again, my friend. If you don’t see that, then we must be watching different movies. And this does not directly relate to timing the amount of minutes she is on the screen;rather it relates to her impact on the story and her key role on the crew. “The Big 4 era” is already here, dude.

106. MJ - April 14, 2013

@103 “So all this ridiculous ruckus about whose on the freaking poster when we’re about a month way from seeing the movie is just absurd. And then trying to drag McCoy into this petty coldness bordering nastiness toward Uhura makes no sense. He’ll get his poster, don’t worry. I mean, we don’t even know what Kirk’s poster looks like.”

LizardGirl, I agree 100%.

107. Trekkiegal63 - April 14, 2013

Count me in as one of those who didn’t care for the relationship but my not liking the relationship has nothing to do with not liking Uhura or any unhappiness on my part that she’s finally, finally getting her due, participation-wise. Because, quite simply, I adore Uhura and am thrilled as both a feminist and a fan of the character that she’s getting more to do. By all means, the world needs more professional, talented, ambitious women like Uhura (female officers – even better!) in the spotlight!

I’m not one of those who believes that one is replacing another because I see no reason why both McCoy and Uhura can’t be featured prominently.

My not liking the relationship had more to do with it, in itself, being a tired trope. Every female protagonist must be in a relationship in every film. Never single. Yet, male protagonists are shown as both in a relationship or single by equal measure. Out of thousands of films since the dawn on cinema, I can count on one hand the number of films that feature a prominent woman not in a relationship, two (out of three, btw) came out just this past year, and of those one, not surprisingly, was directed and conceived by a woman (Pixar’s “Brave”) for the sheer purpose of not following the tired, Disney, fairytale formula, i.e. let’s explore, for once, what happens when the princess doesn’t care about getting that prince, what if, by chance, she has other priorities *gasp, shock*?

Also, I very much doubt she meant the entire universe would turn out like the TOS one because, whether one puts more stock in nature or nurture, both Kirk and Spock have had significant changes happen to them in this alternate timeline – they’re a little more jaded and weary than their TOS counterparts. She probably just meant the nature of the crew being a family, and her and Spock remaining good friends as the aspects turning out like TOS.

Either way, the Spock/Uhura relationship is not a deal breaker for me. If it continues I’ll just roll my eyes and mutter under my breath to my husband about cliches and formulas, as I did during those scenes in the last one, but overall enjoy the entirety of the film because it’s Trek, and exciting and wonderful and the things I like outweigh those that I don’t. If they don’t make it, as the beautiful Miss Saldana suggests here, I’ll likely whisper in my husband’s ear, ‘huh, good for the writers, a variance from the formula and progressive towards female portrayals to ‘boot’ and enjoy the film because it’s Trek and exciting and wonderful.

108. MJ - April 14, 2013

Out of thousands of films since the dawn on cinema, I can count on one hand the number of films that feature a prominent woman not in a relationship.

Hmm. I can fill up both hands here and am just getting started:

The Alien series by itself is 4 films with the female protagonist not in a relationship.

Terminator 2.

The Quick and the Dead

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Alice in Wonderland

Laura Croft Tomb Raider


…that fills up both hands, not just one.

I get your point and agree with it in general, but when you overstate your case here like you do you risk not being taken very seriously.

109. Trekkiegal63 - April 14, 2013


Alien(s) is one of my three, i.e. one of the ones I count on that one hand.

Salt had a husband, who they intricately tied to her ‘softer’ side and change allegiance.

The second Tomb Raider had a romance… with whoever the guy Gerard Butler played… I don’t really care enough to look up the character name. Didn’t much care for the sequel.

The first Terminator had Sarah Conner in love with Kyle Reese thus conceiving the all important John Conner.

As for Crouching Tiger… did we not watch the same film? Does deathbed confession of love and the whole unrequited/pining (another trope) aspect throughout the entire thing ring any bells?

I’ll give you Alice. Good one. (Adds it to my list – now I have four).

Got to be honest, haven’t seen The Quick and the Dead, but did a quick google search and am intrigued. Will have to add this one to the netflix queue.

Thus I stand by claim. Based on the list you gave I’d have to say I wasn’t overstating at all. Because I don’t count most of the above as being without the romance trope.

110. Marja - April 14, 2013

Perhaps they created a relationship for Spock and Uhura so Kirk and Spock each have an intimate friend they can discuss things with, or rely on, or lean on in times of trouble. In Kirk’s case, this would be his friend McCoy, and in Spock’s case, this would be his significant other, Uhura, and the quartet is stronger for it.

I don’t think Uhura’s just there to be “Spock’s Pillow” as someone put it once. I think she’s there to be many things to many women. A heroine, a professional, a lover, a beloved, a communicator par excellence. I don’t see why these have to be mutually exclusive.

I’ve known many professional women who were wives, mothers, officers, and excelled at their careers. I didn’t see these officers quit because they got involved with a man and married him … and nor did I see the gentlemen leave the service when they got married. Being in a relationship made them no less professional. The single folk were no more professional than the married ones.

Some folk see Uhura as “a wedge driven between Kirk and Spock.” Simplistic, I think. In the AU Kirk and Spock do not develop mutual trust as early as on TOS. AU Kirk and Spock have a journey to undergo before they can meet halfway as friends, and I don’t think the movies will ever show the type of relationship that some imagine between the two men.

111. Ash - April 14, 2013

@Trekkiegal63- I know what you mean. You and I are on the same page. I definitely prefer my heroines without the romance. Ripley is my all time favorite badass woman. I know we may be in the minority, but I love seeing women taking care of business on their own without being known as someones GF.

112. Helmi - April 14, 2013

I like the fact that a girl finally matters in the series.

So why not put Kirk out of the top 3 and just have Spock (logic), McCoy (emotions) and Uhura (balance). [I never liked Kirk] :P

113. Jemini - April 14, 2013

93. Bell – April 13, 2013

well, judging from the hate the couple gets in this particular site and the fact it’s the only one where the writers somehow interact and Orci&Kurtman had already said that they will listen to the fans… if the fans they listened to are the ones here, I cannot blame if some people might think that they caved under fan pressure and essentially did what the haters asked them to do. Breaking up S/U surely is one of those things the vocal minority had so obsessively asked them to change, along with the whole “get rid of the AU and make it back to TOS”
I’ve read even many non-fans of the S/U relationship (reviews even) that are saying the writers will cave and won’t resist the pull of the fan pandering trope. People had been convinced of this fact since 2009, the had been taking it for granted. Few people are giving the writers the benefit of the doubt (and many of those are, ironically, the “S/U fans”) , Star trek wouldn’t be the first victim of this scenario and won’t be the last.


108. MJ – April 14, 2013
you forgot TOS Uhura herself
she had never been allowed to be a love interest because of the color of her skin but I guess we’re supposed to retcon it now and pretend that the old writers oh so cared about her character and made her single to be a “feminist” example.

if being feminist means that I have to be a fanatic who “pushes” a new religion where somehow women are not allowed to get a career and a romance and where they have to be alone forever to look “badass” and feminist, then I prefer to be anti-feminist.
Either way, people always have to exaggerate and a lot of supposed feminists reduce everything to black and white and see no grey.
That’s not pushing for women’s freedom to choose what they want to be.
It’s ironical the supposed pro feminist are essentially the ones that keep making it so that there is no equality between men and women and they are the ones that create stereotypes about women and have double standards, Women are always held to a higher standard than men, they always have to somehow “fit” with specific requirements establishes by the “feminists” otherwise they’re automatically judged and called weak.
feminists= women telling other women how they have to be women.

114. Trekkiegal63 - April 14, 2013

#110 Marja:

Of course women can be professional and in a relationship. I’m one myself, as in I’m both happily married and I work full-time. That is not the issue here. The issue is portrayals, choices and history. As in there was a time, not too long ago, where women tied their identities up with finding a husband. Anyone not married was considered a ‘spinster’ or somehow lesser or undesirable. When movies and by extension, television, came into play it did nothing to alter this perception. Female protagonists were wives/mothers/girlfriends and/or pursued as such. While men could be portrayed as either single or in a relationship equally, with no judgements held against them either way, women have never had that luxury.

And this isn’t even touching on fairytales where female protagonists long for a prince to come and save them from an ill-timed fate or wicked stepmothers, and end up marrying a guy they’ve met and spoke with all of once. Babies are fed this, little girls, thus conditioned at an early age to place significant importance on attracting a ‘prince’, sometimes above all else.

Fast forward to our current time. Women now make up 50% of the workforce. The US census reports for 2010 through 2012 have singles making up the majority of the American household at 51%… and still women are seldom, if ever, portrayed as single. Bottom-line, women have a choices now, more so than we had in the past. Our financial security is not dependent on finding a husband, we can go to work and support ourselves. I know plenty of women who have actively made the decision to remain single. Yet cinema still, subconsciously, places a stigma on that choice by not portraying any alternative to the romance trope for the female protagonist.

The message this sends is not a good one… decades of protests and suffrage, and a history filled with tales like Susan B. Anthony being arrested for daring to suggest women should vote and Elizabeth Blackwell, the first American female doctor, being accepted as a medical student as a ‘joke’, and the female protagonist still is only of any worth to those who mold her, i.e. the film studio, if she is part of a romantic duo.

Am I protesting romance? No. But I do protest the lack of variety (i.e. choices) for women portrayed in film. It’s a running joke between me and my husband that every film we see is going to contain a romance, even if the genre is science fiction, action or horror (we try to have a ‘date night’ once a week, schedule permitting, and as a result we see a lot of movies).

This hits home for me because I am the mother of a 15-year-old. My daughter is at the age where a lot of her peers feel that in order to be ‘cool’ they need to have a boyfriend. Fortunately, for me, my daughter is far more sensible than that. Oh she has an interest in boys, of course, she is a teenager, i.e. what my mother would call ‘hormones with feet’, but she doesn’t tie her self-esteem nor social status up with having a boyfriend. We’ve talked at length about it, she and I. Other teenage girls are not so forward-thinking in that regard and based at what they’ve seen on film their whole life, I can see where one aspect of this damaging myth perpetuates.

115. Spockchick - April 14, 2013

I for one will be very sad if the writers break up Uhura and Spock. As a very long term TOS fan I always saw Spock as ‘The Priest’, a celibate, calm character who always saw the bigger picture. We know of course that he suppressed that side of himself, The romance was such a blindsider for me, totally fresh and unexpected. It made the re-boot really feel like a re-boot.

For those who think the romance relegates Uhura, this article is very interesting. A woman of colour muses on Uhura’s role in ST 2009.

116. Marja - April 14, 2013

See, I’m a feminist and I don’t believe any of that stuff about “to be professional, women have to give up relationships.” Cos if men don’t have to give up relationships, why should women have to?

Yeah, Ripley was a badass. So’s Uhura.

I REALLY hope the writers aren’t giving in to the haters. They are not in such a majority; they are just very vocal.

117. Trekkiegal63 - April 14, 2013

#111 Ash:

Huge fan of Ripley myself. Just adore her.

Also, in regards to a preference for kick-ass, single heroines… right on! This makes two of us!

118. Trekkiegal63 - April 14, 2013

#113. Jemini:

Based on your behavior in this thread, i.e. the tantrum you’ve thrown at the potential of a fictitious relationship being discontinued (i.e. your claims that the only thing Trek had going for it was the S/U romance, accusing the writers of ‘pandering’ because they may be making a move *you* disagree with), I’d say you need to do some reading on extreme parasocial relationships and the behavior associated with them.

Fron “Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance”…

For the great majority of the audience, the para-social is complementary to normal social life. It provides a social milieu in which the everyday assumptions and understandings of primary group interaction and sociability are demonstrated and reaffirmed. The “personality” program, however, is peculiarly favorable to the formation of compensatory attachments by the socially isolated, the socially inept, the aged and invalid, the timid and rejected. The persona himself is readily available as an object of love – especially when he succeeds in cultivating the recommended quality of “heart.” Nothing could be more reasonable or natural than that people who are isolated and lonely should seek sociability and love wherever they think they can find it. It is only when the para-social relationship becomes a substitute for autonomous social participation, when it proceeds in absolute defiance of objective reality, that it can be regarded as pathological.

… the bolded? This is the impression you’re sending with your erratic posts.

119. Spockchick - April 14, 2013

@118. Trekkiegal63.

I feel bad for Jemini. I think what you said about her / him was cruel, especially on a public forum. I won’t be back to this this thread.

120. Jemini - April 14, 2013

whoa I wondered when you’d start to personally attack and insult other posters because they stated an opinion like you.
new at eleven.

way to prove your point and prove you’re the “sane” person here.
Enjoying your hypocrisy here as well, most of the posts I’ve read by you in this site had been about you attacking the writers and accusing them of doing a disservice to society and a number of other things just because they added the romance. At least I never implied that they could, somehow, damage little girls with their “token romance”.

I’m also glad to see how your offensive comments seems to get a free pass here when the mods had warned other people (e. g. Keachick who had always been respectful for the most part and I NEVER saw her making this kind of comment) for much less.

You didn’t even deserve an answer from me but you see I have time to waste over stupid things, at least we have something in common it seems.

121. Jemini - April 14, 2013

119. Spockchick – April 14, 2013

don’t feel bad for me, fortunately for me I can care less about what an internet nickname called Trekkiegal63 believes in a site about star trek. I’m not the first person she is insulting here and won’t be the last. If she wants to believe that I’m like that.. well her prerogative. If she wants to be believe that she’s the sane person here and her behavior is not erratic and had never been, her prerogative too.
I suspect she hoped I’d insult her back.. sorry to disappoint :)))

122. Paul - April 14, 2013

103. LizardGirl – April 14, 2013

“Okay, now I’m seeing some sexist comments.”

I’m so fed up with these post-modern psychobabble labels, these artificial, clinically-sounding words devised to malign the opposition without actually having to bring a valid argument. :-P

“So all this ridiculous ruckus about whose on the freaking poster when we’re about a month way from seeing the movie is just absurd.”

It ain’t about one “freaking poster”, it’s a continuation of the same issue from 2009. Back then, we were telling Paramount “Stop putting Uhura before McCoy, she is not one of The Three!” And four years later, what they do? They do it again.
Even the ensemble shows have their pecking order when it comes to main cast. Putting Uhura before McCoy, that’s like putting Yar before Data. It’s like putting Kes before Chakotay. It’s like putting Keiko O’Brien before Bashir. It’s not proper.

123. Trekkiegal63 - April 14, 2013

#120 Jemini:

I said ‘based on your behavior’ not you, personally. I would like to hope that you are not the sum of a certain type of behavior. Because yes, your behavior, as exhibited in this thread, does appear to fit the criteria of an extreme parasocial relationship with a fictitious pairing. You’ve attacked the feminist movement, composed of real people, about real concerns because you don’t like it being used against your fictional pairing, you attack the writers of Trek because your fictional pairing of choice might end, and you claimed, earlier, that the only interest Trek holds for you is the Spock/Uhura pairing. BTW: the bolded and itiallicized text was not written by me, I took it out of a psychology article on parasocial relationships which I gave the title for above the excerpt.

As for me, I do not approve of sexism, in any form. This is not just aimed at one aspect of Trek, i.e. the Spock/Uhura romance, but all. I also didn’t like the threesome/kitty spoiler, nor the Alice Eve underwear shot in the European trailer either, and protested both of those things as well because I feel they, too, fall under the veil of sexism.

The difference between you and me? My disagreeing with one or two aspects of a film does not prevent me from enjoying a film (or in this case franchise) as a whole. If I hated every movie that contained sexism I would hate the good bulk of all movies, ever made, which is not the case.

You, however, appear to be only here for one reason and one reason only, by your own admission, no less. That’s an extreme parasocial relationship to a “T”.

124. thebiggfrogg - April 14, 2013

122 posts (now 123)! Is Zoe Saldana a “big deal” or something?

125. Son of Jello - April 14, 2013

Im refering to the post 2009ST Uhura

Riply was someone who came into a situation and whith a lot of maturity and a deep well of inner strength overcame her obsticle and you could see that in her charactor.

Uhura is never going to evolve beyond eye candy in Sar Trek. Ripley wore less clothes in a movie than Uhura but you would never think of Riply as anything less than a capeable person that you would trust and respect because of the person she is and the abbilitys she has and what she looks like is incidental to who she is as a person/charactor. Uhura wore her underweare in a movie and it was a major feature of her as a charactor also a complete turn off. She just looked stupid sure she was sprouting ST Tech and sounding smart and holds a senior position of authority but who cares If you want attention Uhura strip down to your underweare and look for a guy to talk to…….. how ordinary.

Uhura put some clothes on get a new writer/writers that can give you an individual Identity. Your just a generic female in a SciFi/Action movie with no real depth or personality. Thats why your dating Spock he is the only thing that makes you interesting to the audience………..How sad.

126. - April 14, 2013

She is so beautiful. Perfect choice for Uhura.

127. Disinvited - April 14, 2013

Trek has always drawn on great literature. I don’t have a problem with the writer’s introducing a fourth Musketeer to the original three. Just do it well.

128. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 14, 2013

@125. Son of Jello

OK, now that comment has got me riled up. You appear not to remember the 2009 movie properly, because if you did, you would remember Uhura was stripping off in her own bedroom – completely unaware at that point that there was a male present. She wasn’t doing it to entice the hidden male in her room.

So, are you suggesting that women can’t get undressed in their own bedrooms? That they have to do it in the bathroom with the door locked in case their (female) room-mate sees them in a state of undress?

Sure, the people who made the movie played the scene like that to tittilate the (mentally) adolescent male viewers. However, that in NO WAY should reflect negatively on the Uhura character. Just how was it a major feature of her character? Did she roam the dormitory halls in her underwear? Maybe she was on the bridge in her undies? I must have missed those scenes.

Will you make the same claims against Dr Carol Marcus? She’s also in her undies in front of Kirk in STID. At this point in time we do not know the circumstances, but I can almost guarantee she hasn’t done it to tittilate him.

129. Son of Jello - April 14, 2013

And what has defined Carrol Marcus so far you guessed it walking around in her underware. And what makes her interesting…… her relationship with Kirk.

What we need is a switch in our theatre seats where we can select from an assortment of female models that would show up on our 3D glasses when Uhura or Carol etc is on the screen. As far as who playes the part nobody cares.
They have nothing of any real meaning to contribute that is not related to a male charactor and they are objects of fantasy at best so why not let us choose our own. If communications was played by a male charactor in STOS they would have been given less screen time than Keenser in the 2009 version.
Uhuras job is a non job she is there because she wears a short skirt and gets around in her underweare there is no other reason for her to be in ST. Unless she is playing second bannanna to a male charactor

130. Son of Jello - April 14, 2013


The entire scene was a set up to see Uhura semi naked. We didnt have to see her naked to find out Kirk was in the room. There was a plot point in the scene but she had to deliver it in her underweare. There were plenty of other options for Kirk to find out the plot point from Uhura. Like Uhure doing her job or something that establishes her character as having more depth than a bikini model.

131. Keachick - April 14, 2013

trekkiegal –

How does Jemini attack the “feminist” movement? No, what she (and I) are debating is the ideology that some feminists hold. Apparently your concerns are real, but not mine or Jemini’s, because they do not necessarily agree with your notions of what should or shouldn’t be told or seen in movies. It is you who is upset at what is shown in movies, not us, and it is always about one topic, romance (and partially clothed females).

What’s more, you repeatedly quote from articles about para-social behaviour and conclude that she and I must have these problems which are pathological in nature. When you cannot win your argument on its own merits, you shove the latest psychobabble at us in order to try to invalidate our arguments, because, after all, our behaviours, according to you, seem unhealthy, pathological in nature.

Who are you to do this? You are not our counsellors, doctors, clinical psychologists, psychotherapists or anything else. You are simply another contributor to this site, just like everyone else. People come here for a variety of reasons.

The real trope is that Hollywood has consistently underutilized more than half its population in the television and movie industry. There are too few women seen at all in many films and unfortunately Star Trek (TOS) is one of them. Therefore, Lt Uhura has to multi-task and what a damn good job she does as well.

Not enough women in Star Trek – that is the real issue.

In the real world, *90% of males and females are attracted to each other and the vast majority act on that attraction by forming relationships. Of the *10% who are not heterosexual, most of those people seem intent on forming relationships with those who they feel an attraction. This is not a cliche, a trope or any other silly label you wish to put on it. This is life and has been that way for a very, very long time. Therefore, showing such relationships/intimacies in a movie is hardly a cliche or trope.

Another fact is that right now in the English speaking western world, there are more females than (eligible) males, so it may be that many women are content to be single, not necessarily always by choice, but by default.

#125 – Your post is non sequitur. Please – if you are going to totally misrepresent Uhura and the events shown within Star Trek 09, could you at least spell the words correctly. As I said to another poster, when you make such asinine comments like the ones above, it is ever so important that you get the spelling and grammar correct.

132. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 14, 2013

@128. Son of Jello

So, you don’t want female characters shown in their underwear. Then we are in agreement. I don’t want to see it either.

Now, if we are talking about having characters such as Kirk or Spock running around in just their undies (or at least shirtless, as Harrison may or may not be at some point – according to his interview elsewhere on Trekmovie), my double standards might show as I might think that is a good thing… On the other hand, TOS Kirk got his shirt ripped too many times for it to be more than a running joke. Come to think of it, seeing Kirk in his undies in Star Trek 2009 did absolutely nothing for me.

So, what did you think of Kirk running around in his undies? Was his sole purpose in the movie to be eye candy? Do you consider this to be a major feature of his character? We saw him in his undies for longer than we saw Uhura in hers, and in a more compromising situation. Does this also diminish the Kirk character in your eyes? If not, why not?

133. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 14, 2013

129. Son of Jello

“The entire scene was a set up to see Uhura semi naked. We didnt have to see her naked to find out Kirk was in the room… …There were plenty of other options for Kirk to find out the plot point from Uhura.”

Yes, there were, but that was how Abrams and co chose to play it. How is it that you had difficulty with seeing Uhura in her underwear (in her own bedroom), but seem to not have any problem with Kirk being in his underwear making out with Gaila in that same bedroom in the first place.

134. Keachick - April 14, 2013

I have no problem with seeing anybody in their undies.

I would like nothing better than to see a scene with Carol and Jim in the flesh, in an embrace as they fall asleep. They sleep together but didn’t…

I have already mentioned this on another thread and received silly comments from certain posters who shall remain nameless.

135. Son of Jello - April 14, 2013

Kirk in his underweare is eyecandy but kirk has a well established charactor and history. Seeing Kirk that way is relevent to his charactor. Uhura taking her clothes off just to so we can see her naked is compleatly pointless for her charactors development. Riply in her underweare was not a scene set up so everyone could see her semi-naked it made her look vulnerable to us due to the drooling Alien in the confined shuttle it was relevant and fit the movie. Uhura,s contribution to ST by wearing praticly nothing was and is irrelevant to any plot in the movie and pointless in developing Uhura’s charactor. Kirk is eyecandy thats who he is its what we know him to be.

136. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 14, 2013

126. Disinvited

Let us not forget that it was in fact the three musketeers plus D’Artagnan anyway… And I agree with your sentiment.

137. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 14, 2013

@134. Son of Jello

Now you are contradicting youself.

In post #125, you state: “Uhura wore her underweare in a movie and it was a major feature of her as a charactor also a complete turn off.”

In post #134, you state: “Uhura,s contribution to ST by wearing praticly nothing was and is irrelevant to any plot in the movie and pointless in developing Uhura’s charactor.”

I’m done with this conversation.

138. Son of Jello - April 14, 2013

136. ObsessiveStarTrekFan

In post #125, you state: “Uhura wore her underweare in a movie and it was a major feature of her as a charactor also a complete turn off.”

#125 It was ment as an insult to how her charactor is portrayed. If you biggest contribution you can make to a charactor is being half naked and thats whats remembered of your charactor Its not a good thing

In post #134, you state: “Uhura,s contribution to ST by wearing praticly nothing was and is irrelevant to any plot in the movie and pointless in developing Uhura’s charactor.”

#135 I think this one is self explanitory. And repeats what i said in your extract from my comments in 125.

I hope this has cleared it up for you. I have said the same thing but expressed it diffirently in each case.

139. Son of Jello - April 14, 2013

132 ObsessiveStarTrekFan

“Yes, there were, but that was how Abrams and co chose to play it.”

They didnt play it that way it was a concious desicion. Did Abrams say I should take this oppertunity with Uhura and this important plot point to give her charactor more depth or interest to the audience? No he didnt “Here Zoe put this designer nightware on stand over there and say your lines. OK Criss I want you to pay attention in this scene your going to get information that is important to the story. Were going to establish (labour) your charactors ladysman image and were going to make you look good with this green girl here. There is also going to be some action for you that girl in her underweare. No not that one Criss the other one etc

140. Keachick - April 14, 2013

Don’t forget Chris’s designer Calvin Klein underwear… While you were so busy getting all bent out of shape with seeing Uhura undress in her own room, where she thought only her female room mate was present with her, did you manage to hear and grasp what she was telling her room mate, Gaila?

You have no idea what JJ Abrams intended or said.

I saw it as a perfectly natural scene of two women in the privacy of their rooms having a conversation. When Uhura realized that Gaila did have someone with her, she was quick to get rid of the third person.

141. McCoy's#1Fan - April 14, 2013

I am getting worried about the future of McCoy in Star Trek.. I agree with
an earlier comment that Karl Urban was the best thing about the first
movie… he, of all the actors, captured and looked like the original.

I am not surprised this has happened… J J Abrams is Star WARS not
Star TREK.. he wants nothing of character development.. he wants his
battle scenes and cute little robots/sidekicks. (The very reason I hate Star Wars.

And as for Uhura/Spock.. I can’t forget it was Kirk that Uhura had feelings for.

142. Keachick - April 14, 2013

When did Uhura have feelings for Kirk?

In ST09 Uhura certainly seemed amused by Kirk’s noting that she had a talented tongue etc. However, after that, their interaction was decidedly professional. I never noticed any particular interest towards Kirk on her part in the original TV series.

143. Elias Javalis - April 14, 2013

Clearly, the marketing is more aggressive this time. The falling Enterprise is reminiscent of the falling Iron man.. I like these similarities! Not that i dont like the Uhura Poster!

144. Rick - April 14, 2013

Marja did you just compare Uhura to RIPLEY?! For real?!


Uhura is cool but she doesn’t even compare.

145. Mark - April 14, 2013

Wow. Some people are waaay too emotionally invested in this fictional couple. If they end, they end. Bring tissues I guess? If not then cool. But just because Uhura is a woman or black or whatever else I’ve read on this board does not mean she has to stay with Spock. She can still be strong and part of the big four without sucking face with Spock on the transporter.

And stop trying to blame “haters” for the possible break up and the writers for catering to them. You sound like idiots and its insulting to the integrity of JJ and the others, as if they have no choice or are scared. Watch the damn movie, or don’t . Whatever. No matter what happens anyways there will still be people over here crying about something.

146. T2 - April 14, 2013

I won’t be shedding any tears over the end of that romance. Also, nothing against the other characters or actors, but I hope by the next film (or maybe at some point in STID), we get more McCoy and Scotty than we had in the first film. I would like to see this cast eventually get to the TOS point in their characters either by the end of this film or the next one…at least where we can get one Kirk/Spock/McCoy away mission.

147. Trekkiegal63 - April 14, 2013

#131. Keachick:

When you cannot win your argument on its own merits

LOL. Nice try, Keachick. My pointing out how Jemini’s behavior is coming across was not an attempt by me of deflection. The truth of the matter is that Jemini’s argument (and yours) attacking feminism was based on a hasty generalization and incorrect representation.

She and you are claiming that the feminist movement is telling women they have to be single to be professional, that they’re having their choices taken away, the other way. That is not true. Feminism is all about women having choices, about options being available to them. If a woman, like myself, wants to be married, have a child, and work, more power to them. If they want to remain single, more power to them. What I, as a feminist, is trying to point out here is that choices are not being represented in film, because the vast majority of female protagonists are shown in a relationship with no other lifestyle or choice being represented (are shown in so few cases it’s laughable). And this is something that hasn’t changed since the first motion picture ever made, back when women had far less rights then they do now.

You, and Jemini, conveniently overlook that because you place so much significance on the inclusion of romance over, to quote the excerpt I posted ‘objective reality’. Of course it wouldn’t matter to you if the alternative, the single lifestyle, was represented, because that is not something you want to see, so any psychological ramifications this drastically one-sided portrayal of women has doesn’t bother you because it goes against your tunnel vision when it comes to the subject of romance. That women are being conditioned through media at a very young age to tie their worth and social standing up with attracting a mate is of little importance to your mind as it’s inconvenient towards your will to live vicariously through these fictitious romances, as watching them produces the endorphins associated with new love, but are ‘safe’ because you’re experiencing them as a viewer and not a participant. Therefore, in a way, they can be as addicting as that morning cuppa Joe. Unfortunately, like caffeine, they become a danger when viewed in excess, as comparatively real-life relationships, once past the new stage and more settled and comfortable, don’t produce the same wild rush of endorphins, and thus fail to compare to the fictitious realm where love is new and wild and free over and over again.

If women were portrayed in the way that men are, i.e. shown in a relationship or single by equal measure, there wouldn’t be an issue and I would not be speaking out against Spock/Uhura. But, unfortunately, they are not.

As Virginia Wolfe once wrote in “A Room of One’s Own”, in 1929, no less…

“All these relationships between women, I thought, rapidly recalling the splendid gallery of fictitious women, are too simple… They are now and then mothers and daughters. But almost without exception they are shown in their relation to men. It was strange to think that all the great women of fiction were, until Jane Austen’s day, not only seen by the other sex, but seen only in relation to the other sex. And how small a part of a woman’€™s life is that…”

I find it pretty telling that we’ve progressed very little in our portrayal of women from 1929 to now. Ellen Ripley, one of the most incredible female protagonists of all-time, notwithstanding. Bless her.

As for the attacking you with psychobabble? I’m hardlly the only one to point out that your comments regarding Mr. Pine border on inappropriate sometimes, and not the only one to point out to Jemini that she’s so obsessed with a fictitious romance that her behavior here is presenting itself as erratic. A fair number of people on this very thread have pointed out the same to her. You attack me for, in particular, because a) you’re familiar with me and this is an argument we’ve had before and b) I’ve actually put a name to what’s going on here. Parasocial relationship.

148. Bell - April 14, 2013


Very well said. I didn’t see anything in your posts as mean or cruel. Pointing out facts are not the same thing as throwing out insults. Some people are getting way too serious over a break up that hasn’t happened yet.

149. Jemini - April 14, 2013

123. Trekkiegal63 – April 14, 2013
#120 Jemini:
I said ‘based on your behavior’ not you, personally.

Pull the other one. It has bells on it. =)

131. Keachick – April 14, 2013
thank you

“What’s more, you repeatedly quote from articles about para-social behaviour and conclude that she and I must have these problems which are pathological in nature. When you cannot win your argument on its own merits, you shove the latest psychobabble at us in order to try to invalidate our arguments, because, after all, our behaviours, according to you, seem unhealthy, pathological in nature.

I know right?
… the straw man fallacy, argumentum ad hominem .. she has it all.

if she believes that her long and constant ramblings here, her insults and her passive aggressive behavior, are totally normal and “justified” and could not be perceived as excessive “unhealthy and pathological in nature” as well, her prerogative ;)

150. Trekkiegal63 - April 14, 2013

#148 Bell:

Thank you, Bell, I appreciated that. :)

151. Anthony Pascale - April 14, 2013

I would like all the personal sniping to stop immediately. People like Trekkiegal63, Keachick, Jemini and others are getting too personal and this is turning into Lord of the Flies. The editors of this site do not have time to read every comment as we are up to 100s every day and so we will just have to start banning people that generate these complaints.

Or you can just calm down.

The choice is yours.

152. Trekkiegal63 - April 14, 2013

#151 Anthony Pascale:

I apologize for my part in the negativity being generated here and will definitely back away from this thread.

153. Trekkiegal63 - April 14, 2013

#151 Anthony:

I apologize for my part in the negativity being generated in this thread.

154. Trekkiegal63 - April 14, 2013

Oops, sorry about the double post. The first post didn’t appear after I posted (and refreshed the page) so I rewrote and trimmed down the second one thinking I must have triggered the filters somehow the first time.

155. Son of Jello - April 14, 2013

151 Anthony Pascale

A while ago a fellow poster threatend another poster (Keachick a female) with violence if they were in there presence and nothing was said. I have ripped into MJ and have been pretty abusive of him as a person (not any more we resolved the issue amoungst ourselvs). To the point where he said in this forum. “Anthony why are you not doing anything about this”. Didn’t hear a word from the editors about the way we were talking to each other. MJ seemed surprised about that and so was I. MJ is male and im Male this behaviour is OK. A male threatening a female with violence is OK. A group of woman doing the same thing (not the violence) and the editors wont stand for it.

And the only way to make your feeling clear to these posters is to put women in the context of male behaviour (Lord of the Flies). If you want to ban me for saying this fine. But for it to have any meaning the editors need to have one standard for all if they wish to be taken seriously. Re read the first paragraph again.

156. MJ - April 14, 2013

@109. I never claimed the first Terminator movie, did I???? I said Terminator 2


Million Dollar Baby

The Silence of the Lambs


Whale Rider

I can come up with more? Your are being unduly difficult and extreme here by insisting only 5 movies or less in all of film history fit your argument…and this undermines your argument.

You make good points, but “going extreme” about it causes you credibility here.

157. MJ - April 14, 2013

@155. Dude, why are you bringing me up in your disagreement with Anthony???

I am staying out of this shitfest — no thank you. :-)

158. Anthony Pascale - April 14, 2013


You can tone tone it down too.

The message is for everyone.

Due to increased traffic and comments we will be moving to an even more zero tolerance policy on trouble-making. No more warnings.

159. MJ - April 14, 2013

OK, will do, Anthony.

(jeez, thanks, Son of Jello)

160. George Zip - April 14, 2013

Yes, because the Kirk/Spock/Uhura trio is the very core of what TREK is.

Christ Almighty.

161. Dave H - April 14, 2013

#160. I agree 100%. And yea, having Uhura, as a female and minority be part of the trio now is exactly the very core of what Trek is, as you aptly pointed out.

But in correctly saying this, you overstated it a bit. It’s really the Big 4 now — McCoy is still “a major.” Its Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Uhura as the Big 4.

This is the very core of what Trek is. Well said, my friend.

162. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - April 14, 2013

I agree with George Zip and Dave H. Uhura has now ascended to be one the primary cast members, along with Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

163. MJ - April 14, 2013


Right on, George! She’s an integral part now of the core Star Trek story.

164. DiscoSpock - April 14, 2013

I also agree with George Zip’s approach to this. We all need to just drop it here and come to accept Uhura as a primary cast member, because if fits with the spirit of Star Trek.

165. Son of Jello - April 14, 2013


Sorry about that MJ :) but I was enjoying the fact that while I was writing my post that I was referencing you as a credible sorce for my point of view on a issue:). Have you noticed that I am using parragraphs in my posts (a bit sloppy but working on it). See Iv taken your advice too :).

166. Disinvited - April 14, 2013

#136. ObsessiveStarTrekFan – April 14, 2013

Now the only question is which one is D’Artagnan?

On youth, it should be Uhura but it seems she already is a Musketeer. McCoy could be an interesting D’Artagnan spin. Would be a hoot if in STID a trio formed of Spock/Uhura/McCoy and Kirk was D’Artagnan.

167. K-7 - April 14, 2013

All, I agree with George Zip’s plea to accept Uhura as one of the major characters. Just accept it and be done with it.

168. Rick - April 14, 2013

113.jemini- sorry but what makes you think that the people who were not fans of S/U are the minority? It seems to be the opposite. Even the poll showed the relationship was the worst part of the reboot. Yes, we are vocal (some rudely so) but we are not the minority.

It’s nothing to do with the character Uhura. Her character and the relationship are two different things.

169. Marja - April 14, 2013

#155, Son of Jello, This is the pretty much the first thing you’ve said that I agree with and I agree whole-heartedly. I’m glad a man said it. THANKS.

170. Red Dead Ryan - April 14, 2013

Yeah, I agree with George Zip, Admiral Archer’s Prized Beagle, DiscoSpock, MJ, and K-7.

Uhura is now one of the main characters alongside (but not replacing any of) Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

That’s the way its going to be from now on. So you all had better get used to it.

171. Son of Jello - April 14, 2013

169 Marja.


172. MJ - April 15, 2013

Son of Jello,

You are forgiven for accidentally getting me in trouble with Anthony when I hadn’t even done anything. :-)) LOL

PS: Yes, good job on working in paragraphs…it is a work in progress for you, but I appreciate the effort. ;-)

173. Jack - April 15, 2013

Spock/Uhura and blowing up Vulcan mean they can write more for/about the character than just suppressing emotions and overcompensating for having a human mom. They gave Kirk daddy issues and a lousy childhood. Otherwise, what new stories can they tell that we haven’t seen before? Sure, new planets, new adventures — but the character arcs would be pretty much identical to TOS, otherwise…

Sure, it could also just all be a way to get Star Trek to fit formula…

174. Frederick - April 15, 2013

I have no problem with the relationship now as long as they reach an understanding and become as they were in the series. Since Zoe said that’s what will happen, it’s interesting to see that they once had a relationship that deepened into friendship and respect as crewmates. Spock was emotionally raw after Vulcan was destroyed, but as time goes on I think he will become more like the Spock we knew from TOS and distance himself from her somewhat as duty dictates.

175. McCoy's#1Fab - April 15, 2013

“He’s dead, Jim.”

That’s the sense I am starting to get about the future of McCoy. It is
a shame since Karl was so good in first movie and really
captured the spirit and looks of the character better than anyone else.

Spock and McCoy were set up to show/voice the two sides Kirk was
having to debate during command situations. I dont see Uhura
taking over that role.

176. Jack - April 15, 2013

Most complaints about Uhura being on posters instead of McCoy sound to me like: “It should be three white men, and not a black woman.”

Never mind that McCoy wasn’t usually in any posters. Would you have made this same complaint about Saavik or Valeris being featured on magazine covers etc.?

177. McCoy's#1Fan - April 15, 2013

#176 Jack.. since you are apparently responding to my post, I will go
ahead and respond to your comments. You are apparently trying to
say those of us who are expressing concern about what seems to
be a disturbing lessening of McCpy’s role in the new Star Trek reboot.are racist. Race never even entered my mind and I resent
your implication.

Wouldn’t you be upset if your all time favorite Trek character seems
to be getting moved to the side. I don’t care who is or isn’t on the
posters but from the trailers and pictures from the movie, I have seen
McCoy basically one time. That is what I am concerned about.

178. Jack - April 15, 2013

176. Not responding to your post. Responding to lots of complaining by many.

Look, it’s marketing material. McCoy wasn’t on most of the TOS-era posters and he wasn’t, if I recall correctly, in some of the trailers. Wait to see the movie to see if he actually does get moved aside…

179. K-7 - April 15, 2013

@177. Sheesh, lighten up, dude. It’s just a poster, not your sister.

180. Anthony Pascale - April 15, 2013

I see a lot of people talking about the ‘big 3′ but in reality it was always the ‘big 2.’ On the show and especially the movies it was always about Kirk and Spock. They had the most screen time, and of course Shatner and Nimoy by far got paid the most and they also were most used in the publicity. Certainly McCoy and Kelley was more prominent than the rest of the cast but he was not treated equally. That is an empirical fact. Yes Kirk/Spock/McCoy was a key character dynamic, but that doesn’t change the Shatner/Nimoy dominance.

And does anyone complaining about no McCoy in the poster have any problems with how McCoy was written or performed in the Star Trek 2009 movie. In my experience even the haters agree that McCOy and Urban were highlights of the movie. And before you declare that he has been ‘demoted’ for STID, let’s actually see the movie.

But I promise if I interview Urban around all the coming publicity I will ask him. He is big fan. I bet he wont have a problem, although maybe his publicist would like it if he got more exposure!

If anyone is getting the short end of the stick it appears to be poor Anton Yelchin…but hey they beat up on Chekov in the TOS movies so maybe it is their way of respecting canon.

181. Rebecca74 - April 16, 2013

#161 Dave H: I agree! Big 4 is where it’s at!!!

#176 Jack: Of course there were no complaints, just as there weren’t any when the other Bones-less posters came out for the later films. Now, all of a sudden, Lt. Uhura is “replacing” Bones. If anything, they’re keeping with status quo: woman on poster; Bones NOT on poster, Kirk, Spock, and the “Big Bad” of the movie.

I wonder why hardly anyone complains about John Harrison “replacing” Bones on the poster.

182. DiscoSpock - April 16, 2013

@181. I’m afraid here that some people don’t want to admit it, but Uhura taking a more active role in both the movies and the marketing, well, it just makes them uncomfortable. It may even be at a subconscious level for them (so that they deny it here and still sleep OK at night), but I think its primarily sexism, with a wee bit of racism also thrown in for a handful of folks as well.

And this makes me sad.

183. Kazza - April 16, 2013

“And does anyone complaining about no McCoy in the poster have any problems with how McCoy was written or performed in the Star Trek 2009 movie?”

I don’t understand. Is this a rhetorical question, then?

184. Curious Cadet - April 16, 2013

@182. DiscoSpock,
“It may even be at a subconscious level for them (so that they deny it here and still sleep OK at night), but I think its primarily sexism, with a wee bit of racism also thrown in for a handful of folks as well.”

Let me ask you this hypothetical. What if Kirk was re-cast as a black man?

You know, Nero’s arrival killed Prime Kirk’s mother before she could be impregnated by Kirk’s father. Instead he falls in love with his wife’s black friend who comes to comfort him, and has a child named James with her in roughly the same time frame as before.

Do you think people would be upset? Do you think they would be upset because they are racist, or perhaps because the original character created by Gene Rodenberry was changed? And what if George Kirk had a daughter named Jane instead? Do you think those who object would be sexist too?

I see very few people complaining that Uhura should be relegated only to being the ships communication officer and given nothing else to do. What I see are people complaining that McCoy needs to be more integral, and Uhura’s increased role threatens to overshadow the relationships established so effectively in the original as a result of McCoy’s lesser role.

If the four of them were given equal coverage in marketing, there would be a lot less complaining. But for these characters to mature into the ones Roddenberry created, Bones will have to become much more intimate in his associations with Kirk and Spock and be a little more omnipresent.

But the fact remains, the team that fights together bonds together. Uhura is seemingly developing a relationship with Kirk and Spock in the new movie that Bones cannot compete with. Spock was never the badass he has become in these movies, and especially not Uhura. The badass heroics were reserved almost exclusively for Kirk. Spock only used his combat skills when provoked preferring to talk his way out of a situation first, and Bones adhered to the Hippocratic oath: do no harm, appealing to compassion at all times. Now Kirk, Spock & Uhura are like a SEAL team together, with McCoy looking in from the outside. The thing is, we don’t know who this Uhura is, other than she seems to embody all three of them — she’s a badass, she’s smart, and she’s compassionate, and thus able to attach to any of the others as need be. So far, the only person she hasn’t really bonded with is McCoy, and that also has the appearance of usurping him in the franchise. We will have to see what happens in this next film.

185. Jemini - April 16, 2013

apparently the script thinks that my comment is not ok
let’s try again…

151. Anthony Pascale
thank you.


168. Rick – April 14, 2013
“113.jemini- sorry but what makes you think that the people who were not fans of S/U are the minority? It seems to be the opposite. Even the poll showed the relationship was the worst part of the reboot. Yes, we are vocal (some rudely so) but we are not the minority.


87. boborci – January 30, 2012
We just know that only 3 percent of trek fans even post, and of that 3, less than half didn’t like uhura/spock, and the half of the three represents less than one percent of the general audience. Sorry.


186. Jemini - April 16, 2013

*sorry posted twice

187. Rebecca74 - April 16, 2013

#184 Still don’t see why that’s a problem. McCoy is very integral to the plot of ST ’09, and if the writers are keeping in that same vein, he will be in the new movie as well. I mean, he did get Kirk on Enterprise when his cheating should have surely left him off, which directly lead to what’s going to happen in the new movie. Even in the preview, you see Bones and Kirk on Nibiru (away mission) trying to save the natives, and then on the bridge trying to convince Spock to allow them to rescue him. Just because that’s not on poster or in a trailer doesn’t mean it’s not in the movie. Maybe you haven’t seen those bits.

Besides, if you *only* want to see TOS characterizations, then you still have 3 seasons of episodes, an animated series, and several movies. It’s not as if these newer movies will erase what’s come before.

188. Kazza - April 16, 2013

I don’t understand why my post was deleted. It was perfectly polite. Trying again:

Anthony @180 wrote:
“And does anyone complaining about no McCoy in the poster have any problems with how McCoy was written or performed in the Star Trek 2009 movie.”

That’s an interesting question, I’d like to have a go at that one.

I thought there was a good effort in the first movie to establish the Kirk/McCoy and Kirk/Spock relationships. They never really had a chance to get into their famous three-way schtick, but it was only one movie and a good foundation on which to build. I wasn’t really into all the Spock/Uhura stuff in the movie. For me, the only thing it did for the characters was make Uhura look pushy and easily-distracted and Spock look hen-pecked and weak. Maybe that was the point. I don’t know. Obviously some viewers liked their relationship. That’s fine. I didn’t like expanding Uhura’s role by making her the Girlfriend. I thought she deserved better than that. I preferred the original Uhura, although I realise that these characters are in a growth phase. So while the whole S/U thing seemed like a waste of screen time to me, I didn’t particularly object.

Everyone — absolutely everyone I saw the movie with thought Bones was the best thing about it — a class above everyone else. While Kirk’s character disturbed the most (I really didn’t like Kirk at all on first viewing), and Spock and Uhura were somewhat hampered by their clumsy affair, it was Karl Urban’s interpretation which stood head and shoulders above the others. He managed to capture that irascible charm – that gentle bluster – that slightly wounded pride, that was so unique to DeForest Kelley’s Bones. It was brilliant really. In many ways, it was he alone who won me over to this new Trek.

I didn’t really feel anything negative beyond mild discomfort with some aspects of the movie until I bought it on BluRay and all the covers were Kirk, Spock and Uhura. A vague feeling turned into a bit of a niggle. I presumed that Zoe was now getting the top billing because she demanded a higher salary than Karl. In reference to the performances in the 2009 movie, that felt unfair, but I understood it from a corporate perspective.

Then I listened to the movie commentary and JJ said specifically several times that he was never a Star Trek fan and didn’t know anything about the series. He then went on to say that his new “Big Three” were Kirk, Spock and Uhura. That they were his “romantic triangle”. He thought it was funny that Kirk is usually the one who got the girl, and in this movie he turned that on his head and Spock got the girl. It was his big joke. He seemed quite proud of it.

The little niggle turned into a big niggle. It was like someone who didn’t know or care about Trek was excising the central core of Trek to make way for a rather banal love triangle. Taking the heart out of Trek and replacing it with something so shallow, didn’t seem to bode well for the future of the series, but it was only one movie. Surely Kirk/Spock/McCoy would reassert themselves in the next. How could they not?

Then the years passed and eventually the advance publicity for this movie started to filter through. There it was again. Kirk – Spock – Uhura. Kirk, Spock and Uhura go here. Kirk, Spock and Uhura fly there. Kirk, Spock and Uhura running through the rubble. Here’s Kirk Spock and Uhura with their big guns. Here are some posters with Kirk Spock and Uhura.

It really was a gradual thing, but the new Kirk, Spock and Uhura trio started to grate like nails on a blackboard. And every time JJ joked that he was making a Trek for everyone BUT Star Trek fans, because he figured they were already on board, well — it’s hard to feel embraced by that attitude.
I mean, I was as thrilled as anybody that Trek was rebooted, and I thought it was generally a fun movie for a first outing, but I don’t automatically have to like everything they feed me because I am a desperate Trek fan.

If Trek no longer goes into space because the average Joe relates better to Earth-bound drama; if the characters are running around shooting rather than talking because modern movie-goers prefer action to ideals, if Kirk is suddenly a reckless rogue piloting a Millennium Falcon rather than the captain of a Starship, if Scotty suddenly inherits an awkward little alien “friend” because JJ is more into Ewoks than Andorians, if the core character dynamic of the drama is moved aside to make way for a the producer’s little joke — well, there’s a point at which it ceases to become Trek.

We’re not there yet, but the warning signs are apparent, and the internet provides a forum for me to express my concern.

189. Kazza - April 16, 2013

I don’t understand why my post keeps getting deleted. It was perfectly polite. Can the moderator shed some light on this?

190. Kazza - April 16, 2013

“87. boborci – January 30, 2012
We just know that only 3 percent of trek fans even post, and of that 3, less than half didn’t like uhura/spock, and the half of the three represents less than one percent of the general audience. Sorry.”

Well, with a grasp of statistical theory like that, he’ll do well. That’s what we call a “sample population”.

191. Jemini - April 16, 2013

the second part of my comment isn’t showing up for some reason ^^”
even the script on this page is sick of reading our discussions, it seems.

( @Kazza I don’t think that the mods are deleting our comments)

168. Rick – April 14, 2013

adding to boborci’s quote above,

frankly, I don’t know how anyone can think that a poll on the internet is proof of anything or it can represent the opinion of the majority of the fans, btw.
Everyone knows that fans with agenda vote more than once by simply changing their IP or after clearing the cache or by simply surfing the site using a different device.
If you think that the poll can represent the opinion of the majority of the fans, well, fine ok but IDK it’s very lame to me.
Besides, and to be fair, in all the polls in this site that specifically asked people if they liked S/U or not (thus giving both options to vote and not just the option to say they don’t like it) half of the people liked it and half did not.
Let’s put some things into perspective here: a poll here, at best, can get “5000 clicks” that say “I dislike this” or “I like it”
In other sites like the official facebook page of the movie they had recently posted a picture of spock and uhura and more than 9000 people hit the “like” button.
The example I have provided says nothing about those people liking the romance or not but it puts things into perspective for the ones like you who think that “5000 clicks” in this site = majority and everybody’s opinion.
Star trek fans are tons and most of them don’t even actively participate in the fandom or if they do, they do it in different ways and in different sites.

In any fandom, the people who vocalize their opinion in sites like this one are, for the most part, the haters only because they’re the ones who feel so strongly about their opinion that they feel the need to vocalize it and tell the writers that their story is not “right” .
Specifically, the ones that like the S/U romance are either indifferent to online fandom (they don’t participate) or if they participate they prefer to do it with fanworks (fanfictions, fanarts).
Out of the 1000/2000+ members of the S/U communities over livejournal, , devianart and tumblr and all the people that blog stuff about them , how many of them are commenting here?
few if you ask me.

192. Kazza - April 16, 2013

Thanks Jemini, as long as it’s nothing personal :)

I agree with you that a thread which calls for an “opinion” from posters will usually skew negative, as folks in the ‘positive’ camp usually don’t feel as compelling a need to dissent. Calling them “the haters” however seems a bit strong. I wouldn’t characterise most people who take the time to articulate a different yet valid opinion “haters”.

At the same time, I wouldn’t categorise everyone outside the sample group as part of the “in favour” crowd either. They would fall more correctly into a response category like “don’t know/don’t care”. In fact, that matches my own anecdotal samplings from non-Trekkers who weren’t fussed one way or the other. But that doesn’t make them default positive. Nor can you claim a number of people outside your sample group who may have positive responses as default positive.

It’s like, your local pub changes its on-tap cider. 20% of pub patrons drink cider. Of those, 50% like the new brew and 50% prefer the old, so you claim 90% of patrons are in favour. Of course, you could say 90% of patrons are not against the new cider (politicians in particular can deliver statistical data in a way that supports a pet theory), but it’s a little spurious.

And none of this mandates that people with a different opinion, whether few or many, should be silenced because they are accused of being out-of-step with the majority. It’s just a discussion thread.

193. MJfan - April 29, 2013

@155 Are you sure MJ is male? If so, his opinions and comments sound exactly like those of a woman MJ I know. Weird coincidence if this MJ is not her.

Apologies to MJ for thinking you were my MJ if you’re not, but I that doesn’t stop me agreeing strongly much of what you said in this thread about there being room for a quartet.

I’m not as convinced that the quartet will remain – I’m among those who believe the writers might be listening to the most vocal of fans, and in my experience those have been the complainers – but I did believe that the 2009 film was much more of an ensemble turn than a showcase for the Big Three of TOS. And I liked that about it. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.