Watch: New Star Trek Into Darkness TV Spot – Hear Alice Eve For First Time + More Analysis |
jump to navigation

Watch: New Star Trek Into Darkness TV Spot – Hear Alice Eve For First Time + More Analysis April 14, 2013

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

UPDATED: As TrekMovie first reported earlier this week, a new Star Trek Into Darkness TV spot airs tonight during the MTV Movie Awards. And MTV has put the ad online early so you can watch it now. There are some new bits in it. Check it out below plus some analysis (with spoilers).   



New Star Trek Into Darkness TV Spot

You can watch the new Star Trek into Darkness which was shown during the MTV Movie Awards.

Analysis Below (Beware Of Spoilers)









Screencaps & Analysis – Carol Marcus is a Brit?

The big reveal in this commercial is hearing Alice Eve speak for the first time as Dr. Carol Marcus. The actress is using her natural British accent instead of adopting her Americanized accent for the film (to match Bibi Besch who originally played Marcus in Star Trek II). However, we have also heard Peter Weller speaking in a previous trailer and he plays Admiral Marcus (Carol’s father). Admiral Marcus is heard with Weller’s usual American accent. So apparently there is some backstory on why Admiral Marcus’ daughter has the Brit accent – perhaps she went to finishing school in England?

Here are some caps of the new bits from the spot (sorry low resolution is all we can do for now):

Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) on board Stafleet Shuttle says: "You have a reputation Captain Kirk"

Kirk (Chris Pine) boarding a Starfleet shuttle replies: "I have a reputation" (it isn’t clear if the dialog is actually from this shot or being used as voice over)

John Harrison (Bendict Cumberbatch) fights Spock (Zachary Quinto) on floating barge above San Fransico

Spock gets Cumberpunched!

Kirk (apparently to Harrison) asks "are you coming with me or not?"

The TV spot also features a series title cards broken into segments – featuring a new slogan (possibly just for this spot):


1. Mad Mann - April 14, 2013

Cool. I’m gonna check it out tonight. I hope that JJ Abrams does something like playing the keyboards during “walking away from explosions” bit he did last MTV awards. That was funny.

2. John Tenuto - April 14, 2013

Um, does Carol Marcus have a British accent? In this universe, she must be educated in England or something?

3. Barney Ffe - April 14, 2013

I’m getting super anxious to see this film!!

4. Aix - April 14, 2013

Alice Eve’s pronunciation of “Captain Kirk”!!! Jesus.
Love, love Spock but Harrison’s punch was A++

5. Mad Mann - April 14, 2013

BTW: That’s the best trailer yet for this movie.

6. Flake - April 14, 2013

I thought it was the worst trailer yet :P

7. Mad Mann - April 14, 2013

@2 Maybe Carol Marcus was always British, but when we saw her in the Prime universe in TWOK it was 30+years later, so maybe hanging out with American-accented people in Starfleet for that long caused her to lose the British accent.

8. Khan 2.0 - April 14, 2013

you know i hink this particular trek has the best chance out of all the trek films to really tear up the box office(even more so than TMP and ST09 both of which were sort of an unknown gamble at the time anyway)

– the fact its the sequel to the successful reboot that everyone has seen by now (TDK to its Batman Begins)…the director doing Star Wars VII next publicity….it looks like a pretty cool earth bound SF action film like Fifth Element/Total Recall/Blade Runner…the cast more known this time….the blonde in space underwear etc

i think 500m ww (300m US/200m+ forgien) is more than possible (which for trek would be like a billion $) but maybe even more? (could it even double ST09s 385m?)

9. Rub Oil on Picards Bald Head - April 14, 2013

Trailer blew green alien balls compared to others

10. Flake - April 14, 2013

In the future you can take a pill that changes your accent. This is what Picard did in 2314 ;p

11. Aix - April 14, 2013

@1 Am I the only one who got second-hand embarrassment from that video because of JJ? Haha! But yeah, keyboard skills, I give him that!

12. Flake - April 14, 2013

8: How well this does depends on the reviews. If the reviews are so-so then imo it will struggle to get to $300m perhaps it will hit $280 million if the box-office is kind… but if it gets the same reviews as the last one then all bets are off!

13. Flake - April 14, 2013

Iron Man was very well received and well reviewed in 2008 and everyone anticipated huge numbers for a sequel because of this yet IM2 made less than IM1 because it was nowhere near as good a movie. I have watched IM2 (once) but I cannot remember any full scenes from it and tbh I have forgotten how it ended and everything. Only things I remember from that movie are Mickey Rourke and his whips and a bit of something at a car race, whereas I can recall all of IM1.

14. Khan 2.0 - April 14, 2013

@13 – IM2 still outgroosed IM1 ww (623m to IM1s 585m)…anyway IM2 was rushed out. theyve taken their time with STID (too long actually!)

if STID is deemed a good as ST09 then as u say – all bets are off (imagine a ST film making 600m!)

15. Captain, USS Northstar - April 14, 2013

@12 — Who listens to reviews anyway? If people want to see it, they are going to go see it.

And then there are all of us, watching the Countdown Clock who will see it *multiple* times.


16. helen - April 14, 2013

Awful trailer. I know they have to be short but it was a disjointed mess. Also the sound effects on the punches were terrible. Sounded like to girls fighting.

I noticed they used a different take on Cumberbatch speaking in the last released the trailer. Instead of that ridiculous slow delivery of You dont know what you have done (with a pause between each word). Its been redone to sound more normal and he says what YOUVE done. So did they get him to redo it? or do they have umpteen takes they can use with him sounding different in each!

I hope he hasnt been asked to speak that slowly for the whole film. Its not easy on the ear. He’s a brilliant actor so if he’s talking THAT slowly he’s been asked to do it.

17. helen - April 14, 2013

Sounds as if Alice is using a scottish accent

18. steve - April 14, 2013

Cant help but think JJ has taken the foot off the peddle. Probably distracted on future projects. I dont get a feeling of a tight pr strategy.

19. Daniel Broadway - April 14, 2013

That shot of Alice Eve in her underwear just thrown into that TV spot was so awkward. If people want to look at scantily clad women, there is always the internet, one need not see a movie for that. No need to blatantly throw it in the ads.

20. MattR - April 14, 2013

I’m gonna try to use “Cumberpunched” in daily conversations. LOL

21. Anthony Pascale - April 14, 2013

Added analysis

22. TrinaInUS - April 14, 2013

The text on the teaser sounds very confident. I hope the movie delivers. IMO, it’s looking good so far (perhaps great).

Now all I have to do is get my adrenaline level back to normal. ;)

23. Aix - April 14, 2013

So Dr. Marcus and Cumbervillain have ridiculously posh British accents. I love it!

24. NCC-73515 - April 14, 2013

Since she’s now a weapons researcher instead of a biologist, she probably got her education somewhere else. Could easily be another country.

25. vva - April 14, 2013

This brings up a question. How many main characters had English accents in the original movies ?

26. Khan 2.0 - April 14, 2013

a cause for slight concern is the following wkend you have F&F 6 and Hangover 3….the wkend after is After Earth then the wkend after that is the big one – Man of Steel

but gud really as no other major movie on Treks wkend release and i dont think After Earth will be much of a problem for Trek (looks like Oblivian which i doubt wll set the BO alight, and M Night is more a figure of fun now LOL) and Man of Steel is 3 weeks later but FF6/HO3 could eat up some of Treks BO – then again what you expect – its the summer!…and if anything Trek is a big deal now that is a cause for concern for other movies :)

2009 was far more of a concern for Trek – Wolverine the wkend b4 (the last one had been the biggest of all X films and this was a sole Wolverine film answering all the big origin questions at last – but then again it got leaked early and had bad reviews), Angel/Demons the wkend after (Da Vinci Code was huge 750m ww so A/D couldve been just as big – but then again no one really liked TDVC and no one seemed that bothered about a sequel that didnt deal with controversial Jesus stuff) then Terminator4 the wkend after that (which was the much anticipated future war and had Batman in it so couldve been much bigger than it turned out – but then again no Arnie, was PG13, and was directed by McG LOL)…so actually those other 3 big films although they looked pretty intimidating to Trek before, it turned out Trek kicked all their asses easy at the US box office…and overseas/ww for Terminator & Wolverine ( was only beat WW by Hanks)

27. Flake - April 14, 2013

25: David Warners character in TFF and TUC :)

28. Anthony Pascale - April 14, 2013

we will probably do an article looking at summer 2013 competition but in general it is standard for there to be at least one big movie opening every weekend starting at the beginning of May. There is no free ride in a summer, but it is also not a zero sum game. It is normal for multiple films – even films that open one week after the other – to do very well.

29. Flake - April 14, 2013

26: For both Trek 09 and this one I believe the better release date is Christmas or the week before Christmas. Instead all the studios release their tentpoles one after another in the summer and take business from each other.

30. Drij - April 14, 2013

nice undies

31. Classy M - April 14, 2013

Does anyone else think Alice Eve’s pronunciation of ‘Captain Kirk’ sounds like Barbara Anderson’s in Conscience of the King? I half expected her to call Pine ‘Caesar of the Stars…’

32. Giez - April 14, 2013

What, Nobody talking about Kirk asking Cumby if “he’s coming with him or not”??

Foreshadows the climax me thinks…/

33. Flake - April 14, 2013

Coming with him for a space walk…. ?

34. Daniel Broadway - April 14, 2013

@32, I suspect the second jumper out of the airlock is Cumberbatch going after Admirl Marcus’ ship in orbit around the moon. Cumberbatch takes over Marcus’ ship, and betrays Kirk. That’s my guess.

35. AyanEva - April 14, 2013

#32 My mind went to incredibly dirty places with your comment. I’m blaming it on the fact that I’m at the end of the work day. LOL

Back on topic, I can’t wait to watch this when I get home! My phone screen just isn’t quite the same and I have a bad signal in the building anyway. :(

36. Khan 2.0 - April 14, 2013

@29 – tell that to theNemesis team LOL (opened between LOTR and Bond and did to TNG what Bane in that film tried to do to earf :)

37. Khan 2.0 - April 14, 2013

@28 – awesome AP, i like those box office threads. looking foward to STID breaking ST box office records like its 1986 (i think ST09 is the current big daddy – obviously unadjustd, but also when they all adjusted to todays $s? out grossing TMP and TVH?)

38. Andrew - April 14, 2013

This is not a trailer people. It’s a TV spot (and a fun one). The trailer is out on Tuesday.

39. Iva - April 14, 2013

MTV Movie Awards…. Quinto, Pine, Saldana

Are people still going to attempt to argue how Bones hasn’t been replaced because of Uhura and how it’s a big 4 now?

Well, where is he then if they bothered with bringing Saldana?

40. Unwanted - April 14, 2013

I actually think when Harrison says “your leaders have comitted a crime I cannot forgive” that he is referring to Starfleet abandoning the planet April was living on to the Klingons. Thoughts?

41. Flake - April 14, 2013

ST09 bests TVH and TMP in todays money however some people say TMP earned more $$ than is stated officially..

42. Calastir - April 14, 2013

That awkward underwear shot is awkward.

Must be an important plot point though.

43. Keachick - April 14, 2013

#19 – Well, I am seeing this scantily clad lady on the internet. In fact, it was on youtube because I cannot see MTV in my country.

Stop obsessing about that scene. Yes, it does seem awkward when watching it with everything else that is going on, but perhaps, that may the point… watch the movie to find out.

Thank you, Anthony, for posting the youtube version for those of us who cannot see MTV, Hulu and others.

Carol sounds like Alice Eve.

44. Flake - April 14, 2013

Basicly I can sum up that ad like this:

Lets go to the beach and see Alice Eve in her underwear!!!!! Star Trek into Darkness, May 17th.

45. Gary Makin - April 14, 2013

Alice Eve can do a very good American accent, so why didn’t she use it?

46. Aurore - April 14, 2013

When I saw Alice Eve wearing her black underwear, I thought ; ” CLASSIC! Nice choice SISTA !!! “.

@ The management.

Feel free to delete this post of mine , I’m clearly looking for trouble ; as a woman I should have been horrified by the “infamous” shot.

I wasn’t.


47. Unwanted - April 14, 2013

@42, 44. You guys know that JJ doesn’t cut the trailers together right? That is handled by people in marketing, not directly connected with the production. Check the dvd commentary on ST09 JJ didnt even know what scenes were used for trailers, so it is unfair to blame him for a decision he did not make.

48. Caesar - April 14, 2013

#17 – Sounded Scottish to me too.

49. Flake - April 14, 2013

47: I understand JJA is not involved. I just think this TV Spot is the worst one yet thats all.

50. Jack - April 14, 2013

U.S. only so far (MTV does this, not this site). I haven’t found it on YouTube yet…

51. Disinvited - April 14, 2013

#39. Flake – April 14, 2013

That’s because there’s essentially no “official” other than Imdb and they own BoxOfficeMojo which I believe never has cited it’s sources for TMP’s figures, but for whatever reason (maybe because it was the first web site to start trying to keep track of BO in general?) Mojo is trusted.

The studio could clear it up, but really has no motivation to go digging for old figures that could potentially knock it’s current fare off as king of the hill. Besides clearly (mis)perception is everything to the studios anyway or how else does one explain their refusals for decades to release the data as number of tickets sold as opposed to gross dollars taken in? I mean impressive BIG and BIGGER numbers are better for marketing.

FWIW in the Google newspaper archives, newsprint in the 1980s report the total worldwide take for TMP in the range of $150M to $170M.

52. Jonboc - April 14, 2013

Looks amazing…underwear and all! Looking forward to the full blown trailer next week!

53. Disinvited - April 14, 2013


I was answering what is now numbered as comment number 41.

54. Jack - April 14, 2013

50. Sorry, I’m a little slow today… Now I see it… Here. ;(

55. Ahmed - April 14, 2013

Do we know if the Tuesday trailer will contain new scenes or not?

56. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 14, 2013

I’ve got the MTV awards set up to record so I can fast forward through the bits I’m not interested in – ie all the stuff completely unrelated to Star Trek. I did the same with the Oscars.

Thanks, Anthony, for posting the youtube version for those of us outside the U.S.

Is it May, yet???

57. edshrinker - April 14, 2013

Am I the only one to be stoked if Cumby ends up playing for the good guys? Thinking the hands on glass shot is Spock giving him a sign of respect and appreciation for giving his life for the right side right at the end (ala Vader).

58. Mad Mann - April 14, 2013

In brightest day, Star Trek In Darkness Night…

59. ProtoVulcan - April 14, 2013

Dunno about Xmas release.
If a picture has legs in May, it can run all summer.
IV made a ton by starting Thanksgiving week and running all through the holidays.

60. Ahmed - April 14, 2013

btw, thanks Anthony for adding the youtube clip. I’m in Canada but can’t watch the MTV video because of “my location” !!!

61. Kathleen - April 14, 2013

#16 Helen, May I respectfully suggest that you take it easy a little bit? This is just one of the trailers for this movie, and all trailers for this movie may not be PERFECT (as in completely satisfying YOU) , but marketing-wise seem work effectively as a whole so far. This is not Cumberbatch’s first movie and certainly won’t be the last, and any actor in a franchise film is one of the ensemble cast; his performance in this won’t solely break or make this movie. Getting so worked up for his ONE voice-over line for ONE trailer by ONE of many online film critics/ journalists and starting to spit out your anxiety all over the web is really not just a little bit over-the-top.

62. Meepmeep189 - April 14, 2013

Seems as though Eve’s line was cut together, doesn’t sound natural.

63. Michael Hall - April 14, 2013

“I thought it was the worst trailer yet :P”

Agreed. Nothing much on view aside from a lot of jumpy cutting, elaborate settings and cheeky dialogue. Still, it’s just a quick spot. Based on the nine-minute preview I’m still somewhat hopeful for an summer action film with some substance sorely missing from the last film, set in what looks to be one of the most elaborate depictions of “future Earth” ever. Even if its not my idea of what Trek should be.

64. Mr Mike - April 14, 2013

In the Countdown comic books, one of April’s passwords is “Caroline.” What if Carol Marcus is really April’s daughter but put in Marcus’ care after April “died”?

And John Harrison is her brother (if not April himself).

65. rfk - April 14, 2013

Got my tix for Wed IMAX. Wife thinks I should grow up, she’s probably right…

Still worried that JJ just mailed this one in, and MG simply re-arranged old work that didn’t contend for an Oscar last time. A few secondary cues were quite good but the major themes were generally forgettable. If I were a director I’d want my composer to chase an Oscar on *my* film, not someone else’s. Call me crazy.

Hopefully the ugly E takes a permanent swim and we get a refit. Hate to imagine three new ST films but not a ship worthly of a Hallmark ornament hanging on my Christmas tree.

66. Dr. Cheis - April 14, 2013

If the plot didn’t seem to center around England, I’d find the accent suspicious.

67. Basement Blogger - April 14, 2013

@ 19

Daniel and other uptight Trekkersl,

Please stop getting upset of the beautiful Alice Eve in her underwear. The original series had women in scantily clad costumes all of the time. It was a show that wasn’t afraid of sexuality. How about some examples with photographs from the show?

1. “What are Little Girls Made of?” I still can’t figure out how actress Sherry Jackson stayed in that costume without a wardrobe malfunction. Okay, it was tape but still…. it’s a miracle of science!

2. Leslie Parrish as Lt. Palamas in “Who Mourns for Adonis?”

3. Vina the Orion slave girl (Susan Oliver) from “The Menagerie”

4. Lois Jewell as Drusilla from “Bread and Circuses.”

I could go on. I have nothing wrong with beautiful women in sexy outfits. Neither did Star Trek. And yet, women were treated fairly in this sixties TV show. You had women officers. Something that was way ahead of its time in the conservative sixties. You also had a an interracial crew too. Also way ahead of its time.

As long as the women are treated fairly in Star Trek, there’s nothing wrong with a little sex appeal. Carol Marcus is going to be Dr. Carol Marcus Uhura is a brilliant Starfleet officer. So stop getting your panites in a bunch. :-) Enjoy the beauty.

68. Trekbilly - April 14, 2013

Peter Weller isn’t British and doesn’t have an accent…why does his character’s daughter?


69. Red Dead Ryan - April 14, 2013

Look, some of us just think that Carol Marcus should be in a uniform instead of her underwear.

The scene with her in her underwear as well as the scene with Kirk and the cat-women smack of poorn, which we really don’t need.

70. Ctrl-Opt-Del - April 14, 2013

@68. Trekbilly – April 14, 2013 – “Peter Weller isn’t British and doesn’t have an accent…” I’m pretty sure he *does* have an accent, albeit an American one…

71. Trekbilly - April 14, 2013

@70 — Yah, true! LOL!

72. LizardGirl - April 14, 2013

I was stoked just watching the actors together on stage. MTV clip was a little choppy, but we did some new dialog.

73. Phil - April 14, 2013

Nothing I’ve seen so far evoked any strong feelings one way or another, but this one was bad. Choppy video game editing, and the way the text was run is what you generally see for parody movies. So, nothing can prepare me for the darkness, except maybe an image of Alice Eve in her undies? Really now, what message are we sending our daughters again, that to get a head in the future implants are mandatory….

74. DonDonP1 - April 14, 2013

Cool! Those texts I saw were reminded me of a TV spot for 1994’s “Star Trek: Generations,” where we hear a voice-over stating this: “Nothing you have seen, nothing you have imagined can prepare you for the next generation of adventure.” Thanks for sharing! Live long and prosper!

75. Red Dead Ryan - April 14, 2013

Yeah, this ad was poorly edited. About the only thing consistent in these ads are the shots of a scantily clad Carol Marcus.

I understand that its ony a thirty-second ad, but c’mon guys, you could have done a lot better.

76. Unwanted - April 14, 2013

@69 Really dude? Come on there were women wearing less on every previous incarnation of Trek on a regular basis, cripes how many times did we really need to see T’pol slathering on decontamination lotion, good lord Berman’s ridiculous Mirror universe stories were closer to p_rn than this, because the only reason all the mirror universe women were lesbians was to titilate the audience. Find a real complaint.

77. Jack - April 14, 2013

68. Accents aren’t hereditary.

So is this a one-off for the MTV awards, or is this going into general circulation?

This Marcus in underwear = po-rn stuff. well, I don’t understand it. That said, it’s an odd clip — because it’s so quick, and she’s standing so oddly (presumably she’s doing some sort of “What?!” gesture to Kirk checing her out, but she looks more like doing a tiny tribute to Shields and Yarnell.)

78. Red Dead Ryan - April 14, 2013


Dude, what happened in the previous incarnations is no excuse. At some point, Trek has to start living up to its own messages of gender equality.

And yeah, I thought the mirror universe Kira/Ezri lesbian romance was stupid. It was done for shock value.

79. Marja - April 14, 2013

#39, Iva, Urban may be filming his new TV series in Toronto this week, or may be home in NZ. My bet is McCoy and Uhura will have equal screen time, with Kirk, Spock and Harrison in the lead.

#73, Phil, great unintentional humor there, seeing as how the Eve underwear shot is a rather mindless inclusion: “to get a head in the future implants are mandatory.”..! (hee-hee)

I was so bummed when I saw This Video No Longer Available on the MTV frame. But Anthony, thx for the YouTube – with analysis after! You got these on the board quickly, much appreciated.

… even if the trailer is kinda so-so. Looking forward to the theatrical one!

80. Unwanted - April 14, 2013

@78 It wasnt just Kira and Ezri dude. When Rom met mirror Leta and said they were married she laughed in his face and started making out with Jadzia, mirror Kira was hitting on herself. The only woman in the mirror universe under Berman who had any real interest in men was Sisko’s wife.

81. Red Dead Ryan - April 14, 2013


Yeah, okay. But my point stands.

82. I'mPaul - April 14, 2013

Why do all the commercials feature the “we will not fit,” “we’ll fit,” debacle so prominently. It’s not especially impressive or all that action oriented? I’m not upset about it or anything, I just don’t understand why that would be such a big draw that you’d highlight it in practically every commercial.

83. Basement Blogger - April 14, 2013

@ 78

RDR says,

“At some point, Trek has to start living up to its own messages of gender equality.”

Star Trek does. See Captain Janeway. As I said, Star Trek, in the original series had women officers. One I forgot was Prosecutor Areel Shaw (Joan Marshall) I meant I’m sure they could have had her wear a business suit but the snug Starfleet uniform accentuated her figure.. Sexist? No. She’s no toy for Kirk. And yes, Seven of Nine was put aboard because she was one sexy woman. But she was smart, and strong. And get this, it worked for the show, i.e. ratings didn’t suffer. I also agree with another poster above who cited T’Pol’s stripping down. (Enterprise) She did a few times. Remember the message sessions with Trip?

By the way, where was the uproar over Uhura stripping down to her skivvies in the 2009 movie? I recall a trailer that featured that. See link below. Trying to remember if there were any uptight Trekkies who got their panties in a bunch.

Don’t equate sexiness with misogyny. Star Trek has a long history of sexy, strong and smart women. And yes, sometimes they’re in scantily clad outfits If it helps with teenage males who are the audience that studios depend on during the spring and summer tentpole season, then warp speed. As long as STID is a Star Trek movie, then there will be no harm and only positives since there may be a new audience for Star Trek that will love the franchise for its action, heart and intelligence.

Star Trek2009 trailer featured Uhura stripping, Kirk making a conquest.

84. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 15, 2013

Maybe it’s to highlight the different characters of Kirk & Spock. Kirk is ‘gung ho’ and optimistic in his approach. Spock is more analytical and realistic. They don’t always see eye to eye about things. Just a thought.

85. Trek Fan - April 15, 2013

You guys do realize that this trailer was made specifically for the MTV crowd. The fast paced, choppy, jump cutting and the (what looks to be a static shot) of Alice Eve in her undies.

Each trailer is specific to it’s target audience – just like the posters and the trailers for Europe are different than those for the North American audience.

This :30 trailer was edited for the MTV target audience. I’m guessing that you will be seeing a different version of this on the air pretty soon.

86. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 15, 2013

Thinking about it further (probably overthinking it…), Kirk – in both universes – does not believe in the no-win scenario. This scene may also play to that aspect of Kirk’s character: his inate belief that he can get the universe to conform to his desires by sheer force of will.

87. Buzz Cagney - April 15, 2013

Nothing can prepare me for the darkness eh? shows what they know, i’ve got a torch.

88. pock peared - April 15, 2013

Checkov is toast.

89. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 15, 2013

@85. Buzz Cagney

…checked the batteries recently?

90. Curious Cadet - April 15, 2013

@64. Mr Mike,
“In the Countdown comic books, one of April’s passwords is “Caroline.” What if Carol Marcus is really April’s daughter but put in Marcus’ care after April “died”? And John Harrison is her brother (if not April himself).”

It doesn’t fit with canon. In the Prime Universe April did not “die” and he and his wife lived to a ripe old childless age. The only way to explain it in the Prime universe would be to have the April’s child given up for adoption to Marcus, and that makes little sense.

Also, Harrison is not likely Marcus’ son or April’s son, since neither character is from canon, and Cumberbatch plays a character from canon.

The only explanation that fits with the Prime universe is that in the alternate timeline, Admiral Marcus is stationed in London where Carol is raised.

91. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 15, 2013

@87. Curious Cadet

For the past 25 years the universes have had opportunity to diverge. So April ‘died’ in the Alternative universe 20 years ago, even though he did not in the Prime universe.

Maybe he and his wife did have a child in the intervening 5 years. I don’t really think that’s likely though.

However, Marcus served as April’s XO, and the two were close. It’s possible that April was Carol’s godfather (if such a concept still exists in the 23rd century).

As for who Harrison really is – I haven’t a clue. Time will tell.

92. Curious Cadet - April 15, 2013

@88 ObsessiveStarTrekFan,

Again, you have to reconcile Carol Marcus’ past in the Prime Universe with the Alternate one.

There is no way Carol Marcus from TWOK could be April’s child unless April and his wife gave her up for adoption to Alex Marcus, and that seems very unlikely, based on what we know about about Prime April.

Could Carol Marcus have been adopted? Sure. And her real parents could also be the parents of John Harrison (which would be interesting and very Star Wars like). But adopted or not, her English accent has to be explained, and the most likely reason is that she grew up in London in this timeline, because Alex Marcus turned out differently than he did in the Prime Timeline. NOT because she’s the daughter of Robert April who may or may not be British himself.

93. Jack - April 15, 2013

B. Blogger: “Don’t equate sexiness with misogyny. Star Trek has a long history of sexy, strong and smart women.”


94. meepmeep189 - April 15, 2013

@92 Curious Cadet,
I’ve gone over the clip several times now and I only hear an accent when she says “Captain Kirk” which sounds like it’s poorly cut in. “You have a reputation” doesn’t really seem to have it.

95. NuWisdom - April 15, 2013

Chekov wearing a redshirt. Either he got transferred to security, like he did in the TOS movies, or Chekov is getting redshirted to pave the way for a younger Ilia in the 3rd film, probably to be played by Vanessa Hudgens or something.

96. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - April 15, 2013

@68. Why is Picard French, but has a British accent? Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I thought his dad had something of a French accent in his appearance in Tapestry.

97. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 15, 2013

@92. Curious Cadet

I was about to say you should have read my post more carefully, then I realised I should have read your post more carefully ;-) Yes, I take the point that Carol could not be a child of April in one universe and a child of Marcus in another universe, and still be the same person. I did say in #91 that I thought it unlikely that April had a child. In my mind, I was referring to Carol, but I suppose it applies equally to Harrison.

As for her accent, I have no hypothesis, other than she was raised in Britain perhaps. This may mean nothing more than Admiral Marcus and/or Carol’s mother resided in Britain for a large part of her life.

Of course, I could be mischievous here and say that a ‘British’ accent doesn’t necessarily denote British. Picard was French after all. Perhaps Admiral Marcus was posted to Paris for a large part of Carol’s life.

I don’t necessarily believe there is a familial link between Carol and Harrison, although they may know each other. For all I know Harrison might be Arne Darvin…

98. Jack - April 15, 2013

That accent doesn’t even sound British to me. “Captain K-air-k”

99. Red Dead Ryan - April 15, 2013


Apart from Captain Janeway, Lt. Yar, Major Kira, and Lt. Cmdr. Jadzia Dax, how many female characters were allowed to pick up a phaser and fight alongside the boys? How many of them wore full uniforms?

Not many. Dr. Crusher, Deanna Troi, Kes, Hoshi Sato, T’Pol, Uhura, Nurse Chapel, Lt. Rand, etc. were either never or rarely allowed to step out of the box, and instead, were often relegated to the roles of caretakers, operating switchboards, councelling, providing sex fantasies to fanboys, etc.

“Deep Space Nine” did the best at portraying women the way they should be portrayed. The Dabo girls were scantily clad, but that was because they worked for a misogynist bar owner, Quark. The writers made that part of the storyline in several episodes.

Also, Ro Laren and Kassidy Yates weren’t sexual, and both held their own. Ditto for Keiko O’Brien. Heck, Ro was an ex-con who redeemed herself by serving on the Enterprise D but then became an outlaw and joined the Maquis because of her hatred for the Cardassians. She was really well-developed, considering she was in only about six or eight episodes total. More development with her than arguably any of Rand, Uhura, Troi or Crusher.

I’m fine with seeing a little bit of skin on a female character, or showing off their physique. But when on duty, they should be wearing the same uniforms that the men wear. The mini-skirts and catsuits are fine for off-duty activities, such as relaxing in their quarters, or hanging out at a bar or mess hall.

100. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - April 15, 2013

Sato became Empress of the Terran Empire.

Of course, citing her as an example is a poor choice because the writing didn’t do any favors to growing their characters.

You forgot about Torres.

101. Red Dead Ryan - April 15, 2013

If Starfleet is a military organization, which it is, shouldn’t everyone dress the same when on duty?

Again, “Deep Space Nine” nailed it on this front. Major Kira wore a skin-tight suit, but in no way was it sexual. It was a female variant of the uniforms worn by her fellow Bajoran male counterparts.

A lot of people accuse the current writers of sexism and objectifying Uhura. I’m just point out that this trend was started in 1964 (“The Cage” where Captain Pike said some sexist comments to a no-name “Number One”) and continued on (DS9 excepted) through the eighties and nineties up until today.

102. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - April 15, 2013

In regards to “growing their characters,” I meant the characters of Enterprise, in general.

103. Red Dead Ryan - April 15, 2013


Well, your comments on Sato prove my point. And yes, I forgot about Torres. Thank you.

104. Jack - April 15, 2013

Rdr, I agree the skintight uniforms and onesies are dumb. Although I remember reading they made Hawk’s (so?) uniform tight in First Contact ’cause he was young and in shape.

And TNG etc. handled sexy scenes really, really badly. They always just looked lame, forced and incredibly unsexy. The decon stuff on Enterprise was painful to watch.

105. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - April 15, 2013

I’m just trying to point out that the Enterprise scribes didn’t do a great job expanding their characters.

With that being said, why would Doctor Crusher or Nurse Chapel be fighting “along side with the boys?” Remember when Tom Paris was complaining about being stuck in sickbay when The Doctor was sent to the Prometheus? They’re stuck in sickbay because that’s where they’re supposed to be. You hardly ever (maybe never?) saw Phlox on the bridge of the NX-01. Bashir spent most of his time down in sickbay on DS9.

Frankly, I never understood why Bones was on the bridge of the Enterprise as much as he was. Sometimes he was on the bridge for the sake of being on the bridge.

106. Calastir - April 15, 2013

“On may 17th nothing you’ve seen nothing you’ve heard can prepare you for the darkness”

Well, except a flashlight.

107. Aurore - April 15, 2013

My theory on the scientist-in-her-underwear scene.

It does not seem to be a romantic moment at all, for me.
The place where she removes her clothes does not look like a cosy location. But, that is just my impression.

For some reason, which will become clear when I watch the movie, Kirk is there with her as she needs to change clothes. He is not supposed to watch…but can’t help it.

Her attitude when she realises that is to confidently “invite” him to take a good look at her and get over the fact that , yes, she is indeed a woman.

Now, that he has seen what he “needed” to, hopefully, he can move on…
…After all, they do have work to do, crisis to solve, bad guys to catch etc…

108. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 15, 2013

That’s pretty much my take on it too. We shall soon see…

109. guest - April 15, 2013

#61 I think you’ll find its indiewire that raised concerns about Cumberbatch’s slow delivery

110. Khan 2.0 - April 15, 2013

@51 – FWIW in the Google newspaper archives, newsprint in the 1980s report the total worldwide take for TMP in the range of $150M to $170M.

if thats the case then TMP grossed between $479m and $543m worldwide adjusted (no wonder Paramount wanted sequels!)

it did 82m domestic in 1979 so maybe its not impossible the rest of the world did about the same what with it being the first Trek movie, the big marketin,g and most of all Star Wars two years earlier…..that said Trek movies usually make alot less overseas so if it was more like half the US take ( therfore 120m ww) it would mean TMP made roughly the same as ST09 when adjusted

111. Aurore - April 15, 2013

(As an addendum to my post @ 107)

I just remembered something.

Maybe the poster who suggested, somewhere on this site if I’m not mistaken, that Carol Marcus could be (the person) making a space jump (alongside Kirk), was right!

Perhaps the underwear scene precedes the jump!

How SUH-WEET would that be?!


112. Darmok - April 15, 2013

It’s obvious at this point that Kirk, Spock and Uhura are the big trio as opposed to Kirk, Spock and McCoy. I’m not really feeling that but I’m giving the benefit of the doubt that these films are pre-Five Year Mission. I’m gonna go ahead and speculate that at some point Spock and Uhura break up at some point before the mission paving the way for the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship.

113. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 15, 2013

@111. Aurore

I read that post too. I’ve since been persuaded that it is probably Harrison instead. If it’s Marcus, you’ll probably hear the ‘yesss’ from half way across the world when I utter it.

114. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 15, 2013

@112. Darmok

It is my understanding that STID is set only around 6 months after the end of the 2009 movie, and that the ‘5 year mission’ has not commenced.

I think you will find you are ‘stuck’ with Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Uhura, (i.e. the three musketeers, plus D’Artagnan) irrespective of whether or not Spock and Uhura break up romatically. This is not the 1960s. In my opinion, the movie making powers that be will include a strong female major character in the mix. Uhura enables them to expand the role of not only a female character, but also a non-white character to a more prominent position within this version of Star Trek.

115. The Sinfonian - April 15, 2013

Most of us get our accents from our mothers.

So, it’s simple: Alex Marcus might be Carol’s father, but her mother raised her. (If you must, think about Hayley Mills, or LiLo, in either Parent Trap movie. Maybe Carol has an identical twin sister raised by Alex. Ha.)

This suggests Carol can be from London, and thus is *visibly* moved by the attack on London as it kills her mother. And her father is almost killed by the Cumbershuttle firing on SFHQ. Interesting, if she is also somewhat motivated by the same vengeance Kirk is motivated by the death of I won’t spoil it

116. tazzy2918 - April 15, 2013

I think you could explain the accent any number of ways. I think that Nero’s incursion changed the arc of her father’s career which in turn changed the arc of Carol’s life. Maybe because of the events in this movie she moves from a weapons specialist to a civilian scientist in some act of redemption for what she has done.

I agree there may be some connection between the Marcuses and Harrison, not necessarily family (although the “Isn’t there anything you wouldn’t do for family” quote makes you wonder). I think the target in London may be personal for Harrison. He wants to get Starfleet’s attention, but he also wants to make a statement. Maybe whatever the target is has meaning to both Harrison and Carol Marcus?

117. Ctrl-Opt-Del - April 15, 2013

@64. Mr Mike – April 14, 2013 – “In the Countdown comic books, one of April’s passwords is “Caroline.” What if Carol Marcus is really April’s daughter but put in Marcus’ care after April “died”?And John Harrison is her brother (if not April himself).”

I thought the *exact* same thing (if you look on IMDb you’ll see my thread about it there, under the same screen name as I use here). It also fits with Harrison wielding “April’s Gatling Gun”, the fact that April was English, and April being drawn in the previews resembling Trevor Eve (Alice’s real-life father)…

118. LogicalLeopard - April 15, 2013

99. Red Dead Ryan – April 15, 2013

Not many. Dr. Crusher, Deanna Troi, Kes, Hoshi Sato, T’Pol, Uhura, Nurse Chapel, Lt. Rand, etc. were either never or rarely allowed to step out of the box, and instead, were often relegated to the roles of caretakers, operating switchboards, councelling, providing sex fantasies to fanboys, etc.


Eh, I’d beg to differ on that a bit. First of all, you have to take Uhura, Chapel, and Rand out of that equation, because they were made in an era where that wasn’t really the norm. As far as Crusher, Troi, and Kes, I’d say that you don’t always need women toting phaser rifles to validate themselves as women. You’re talking about a doctor, a counselor, and a civillian, they don’t have to be very militant. As far as T’Pol, yes, the uniform was tight and unecessary, but I thought she wasn’t a character that shied away from physical work. And Hoshi is pretty well written, I think. Although i see where people may shy away from her, because she’s not only timid, but a timid woman, but I think she provided a good point of view for the viewers. Here’s someone whose skills are needed, but she thinks flying around in a tin can is crazy. Sort of like Bones in ST09, or Reginald Barclay (although his was less fear and more phobia). You don’t really see that a lot in Trek. I am sure there are many characters on Enterprise/Voyager/DS9 that REALLY don’t want to be there. The guy in the “Lower Decks” episode of Voyager (not sure what the name of it was) who wanted to be a theoretical cosmologist rings a bell. *LOL* It’s kind of refreshing to have a character who says, “Look dude, I’m just here so I can get extra credit at the Daystrom Academy.”

119. LogicalLeopard - April 15, 2013

117. Ctrl-Opt-Del – April 15, 2013
@64. Mr Mike – April 14, 2013 – “In the Countdown comic books, one of April’s passwords is “Caroline.” What if Carol Marcus is really April’s daughter but put in Marcus’ care after April “died”?And John Harrison is her brother (if not April himself).”

I thought the *exact* same thing (if you look on IMDb you’ll see my thread about it there, under the same screen name as I use here). It also fits with Harrison wielding “April’s Gatling Gun”, the fact that April was English, and April being drawn in the previews resembling Trevor Eve (Alice’s real-life father)…


Oooh…interesting idea.

Although, if they didn’t go that route, althoguh I would have preferred an American accented Carol Marcus, it’s easily explainable. The loss of the Kelvin most likely resulted in a huge shakeup in Starfleet patrol patterns, assignments, etc. No big deal for Adm. Marcus to be assigned to England for a period of time.

120. kap48 - April 15, 2013

Cumberpatch Is khans son

121. Exverlobter - April 15, 2013

The accent?
Like Alicia Silverstone in Batman and Robin. Just the other way round.

122. Trekkiegal63 - April 15, 2013

Thank you Red Dead Ryan and Phil, once again, for being awesome when it comes to pointing out the issues surrounding the objectification of women.

… Read through all of the comments and there are too many to respond to individually so I’ll just make a blanket statement. The content of the underwear scene within the movie is not the issue. It’s using that shot to sell the film within the trailer that is the issue. It is objectifying because the context for the scene is not given, therefore what we’re left with is just that shot. Yes, there are times when it is appropriate to be in our underwear, and yes, when we’re changing is certainly one of them. However, just cutting out that one brief shot, without the context given, and using it in the trailers was both superfluous and inappropriate. Worse, it perpetuates the psychologically damaging myth that women are for ogling, rather than thinking, feeling human beings.

Bottom line: scantily clad women should not be used to sell a film.

For those who think I’m exaggerating the issue, here is a CNN article for you entitled: “Men see bikini-clad women as objects, psychologists say”

Secondly, I’d like to remind everyone that when the international trailer first aired, which was the first trailer to include the underwear shot, MTV (amongst a fair number of other entertainment sites) themselves reported the shot as ‘outrageously gratuitous’.

Excerpt from

Late last night, the newest trailer for “Star Trek” hit the web, debuting a ton of new footage and an outrageously gratuitous shot of a female character in her underwear. But hey, this thing needs to make a lot of money, so that’s all good sport, right?

The objectification of Alice Eve aside, the preview gave us our best sense yet of who this John “Not Khan” Harrison guy is, plus a ton of new actions sequences.

All of that said… I very much enjoyed Carol’s one line in this new trailer. You go, girl, you tell him. ;)

123. Disinvited - April 15, 2013

#110. Khan 2.0 – April 15, 2013

I was digging around some archived OCR of STARLOG today and belief I may have found the most credible source to date from May of 1981, No. 46:

””I couldn’t not do it,” Shatner told The
Hollywood Reporter. “I created the role on
TV and look forward to another feature.
After all, Star Trek — The Motion Picturehas
grossed over $170 million to date when it has
not even been reissued yet, and has a world-
wide following as well.””

124. Kathleen - April 15, 2013

#109 yes, Helen/ Guest and other usernames you are using on the internet (no, I don’t stalk you, but when all relevant comments on the same subject matter all over the web are all the same, even in terms of the phrase and tone, it’s not much of a stretch to assume that it’s all you), that’s the one critic I referred to in my comment, and you were perfectly excited about that trailer until you read that one slightest different opinion, and you started jumped up and down all over the web spiting out your anxiety. First you doubted Cumberbatch’s judgment and after others pointed out that movies are product of collaboration between actors and directors, you blamed the director here while the trailer may very well just voice-over work constructed by the marketing people as others pointed out here. Please just relax a bit, as I said, no actor can completely please everyone, there’s gonna be different opinion, and one line in the trailer’s voice-over doesn’t mean much, and ONE critic didn’t totally fall for that voice-over of a trailer is not the end of the world. By the way, you are not an expert in filmmaking and marketing, talking like your opinion is expertise and down-talking other cast members is full of yourself, and I am not the only one on this board had pointed out this.

125. vantheman77 - April 15, 2013

Spock has Uhura. Kirk may have Carol Marcus.

126. William Bradley - April 15, 2013

That’s not a very good ad.

127. Keachick - April 15, 2013

#118 – “As far as Crusher, Troi, and Kes, I’d say that you don’t always need women toting phaser rifles to validate themselves as women. You’re talking about a doctor, a counselor, and a civilian, they don’t have to be very militant.”

Thank you, LogicalLeopard

“Dr. Crusher, Deanna Troi, Kes, Hoshi Sato, T’Pol, Uhura, Nurse Chapel, Lt. Rand, etc. were either never or rarely allowed to step out of the box, and instead, were often relegated to the roles of caretakers, operating switchboards, councelling, providing sex fantasies to fanboys, etc.”

Is there something wrong with being a caretaker – who come in many forms, often essential to the maintenance and welfare of a society or group? Is there something wrong with being someone who allows for effective communication and understanding to take place, perhaps even preventing the need for people for run around shooting and firing at people/things? Is there something wrong with someone who can help a person see a (personal) problem more objectively, even help a captain see his own error?
Providing sex fantasies to fanboys? That really depends on who the “fanboy” is.

What I despise is the fact that so many people here seem determined to continually chose to use terms like “relegate”, as in put on a lower level of genuine importance or relevance, the roles that have been traditionally performed by women most of the time.

verb (used with object), rel·e·gat·ed, rel·e·gat·ing.
1. to send or consign to an inferior position, place, or condition: He has been relegated to a post at the fringes of the diplomatic service.”

There is nothing inferior about the work that women have traditionally done from the beginning of time, ANYTHING BUT. The fact that women have been seen as being inferior and because of what they still tend to do to a greater extent than men is still regarded as inferior, being relegated, is what is truly sexist and verges on misogyny!

128. Exverlobter - April 15, 2013

Well here in Germany it won’t make any difference which accent Alice is speaking.

129. Trekkiegal63 - April 15, 2013

127. Keachick:

There is nothing wrong with ‘caretaker’ roles if that is what one chooses to do. The issue here is the same as it was in the other thread, i.e. not an either/or situation but underrepresentation. The fact that most women were shown in ‘caretaker’ roles is sexist because women have choices beyond that. If they choose to be a ‘caretaker’, that’s great, but if they choose to be a nuclear physicist? Also great! The question becomes how many female nuclear physicist do we see on film? Hardly any! How many female caretakers do we see? A whole lot. The noticeable discrepancy there? That is the concern.

Voyager had its issues but one of the few things it got right? They not only had a female captain, but a female chief engineer as well. It was one of the few reasons I turned in every week, far past the point where Piller and Taylor had left and the writing got borderline ridiculous.

And to back up Red Dead Ryan’s point on the uniforms, Marina Sirtis (Councelor Troi) would agree with everything he said in post #99 wholeheartedly. In fact, has stated very similar sentiments herself…

Excerpt from a Marina Sirtis interview:

I was thrilled when I got my regulation Star Fleet uniform, or the regulation space suit, as we call it. First of all, it covered up my cleavage and, consequently, I got all my brains back, because when you have a cleavage you can’t have brains in Hollywood. So I got all my brains back and I was allowed to do things that I hadn’t been allowed to do for five or six years. I went on away teams, I was in charge of staff, I had my pips back, I had phasers, I had all the equipment again, and it was fabulous. I was absolutely thrilled.

Ah Marina… quite fond of her. I’ve been lucky enough to hear her speak a few times at conventions a decade or so ago. She’s a charming lady. :)

130. Keachick - April 15, 2013

I’m done here. It is up to everyone, especially Hollywood, not to see women in particular as being “relegated” to any role.

I preferred the dress that Councelor Troi wore and I never saw her as somehow less intelligent or anything because of what she wore. Of course, if she went on away missions, then it was more appropriate most of the time to wear pants, but not always.

I did not like the regulations Star Fleet uniform that much. I find the attitudes of the writers and producers of TNG disgusting and pathetic.

As I said, the biggest problem is the lack of women, especially in any TOS iteration. I know we have the main seven, six of whom are male, but why couldn’t Olsen been a woman, except that this particular engineer not be such an idiot. Perhaps if Olsen had been a woman, she would not have been so foolhardy and been the one redshirt who didn’t *buy* it.

Men probably would not cope with too many of their traditional roles being reversed, which is what that would mean in many situations. Has anyone actually considered that? Maybe that is why we have a situation where there are mostly men now, doing pretty much everything…

Obviously, Red Dead Ryan sees such work as being, eg, a caretaker, as being inferior…ref. definition of relegate – the word he used…


131. Khan 2.0 - April 15, 2013


$170m in 1979 = $543m today

I knew it!! TMP totally blows ST09 out of the stars when it comes to Box office and rightly so!! how the hell could it be otherwise?! a mega budget no expense spared Trek film after 10 years of NO Trek with the original cast still looking near as damnit like they did in season 3, released just after SW at the height of the SF movie boom….

its a wonder TMP didnt bring in double that! it probably would have if it had been the Wrath of Khan LOL….hey imagine a $45m version of TWOK!…man how awesome would thatve been! (imagining even more/bigger space battles, Ceti Alpha V filmed in a desert, interior of the genesis cave filmed in tropical location, epic Khan v Kirk showdown on a crumbling Genesis planet like end of Trek III expect filmed near to a live volcanco, Arnie as Joachim etc)

be interesting to learn what the overseas box office was for the sequels..(probably not as much i would imagine – despite the similar to TMP domestic box office as everyone abroad got burned by TMP LOL)

132. Basement Blogger - April 15, 2013

@ 122

First, let me say that I’m a politically incorrect liberal. But when it comes to women’s rights, I support the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Was appalled at Virginia’s trans-vagin_l ultrasound laws and I look forward to 2016 when this country will have a woman president. That being said, I also support the national ACLU. I have an autographed copy of former ACLU president Nadine Strossen’s book,”Defending Por__graphy.” Ms. Strossen who obviously supports the ACLU’s strong stands on women’s rights is also a feminist.

Trekkiegal63, you object to Alice Eve’s underwear shot in the trailer. You say at @ 122, ” However, just cutting out that one brief shot, without the context given, and using it in the trailers was both superfluous and inappropriate. Worse, it perpetuates the psychologically damaging myth that women are for ogling, rather than thinking, feeling human beings.Bottom line: scantily clad women should not be used to sell a film.”

First, let me address the lack of logic behind your “context” argument. Whether she’s changing, about to have sex with Kirk or about to go to the can, the shot is still sexual. It’s a shot of Alice Eve, who is a beautiful woman, wearing a bikini. No matter how short a shot, how could it not be sexual? I mean did J.J Abrams just shoot this scene without having any idea of its sexual nature? Really? Let’s look to another film to see how a director uses a mundane act to depict sexuality. In Louis Malle’s “Atlantic City” (1980), Susan Sarandon washes her breasts and shoulders with a lemon. Gets the fish smell out Malle knew this mundane act was sexual. So much so, that it drives Burt Lancaster’s lust. But why are both scenes sexual? Because they depict two beautiful women in various stages of undress.


Now before you get upset with the comment about beautiful women in stages of undress., let’s go over some human basics, shall we? We, as human beings were created by an act of …. gasp, sex. Let me see if I got this right. In order to propagate the species, human beings must have sex. And somebody made the act pleasurable. Anyway, it’s one of the driving forces behind our actions, at least that’s what I was taught in a psychology class. There’s an old truism that goes like this. Sex sells. Sorry. It does. See Victoria’s Secret, Axe Body spray ads, the guy in the Old Spice commercial…. etc.


Okay, so somebody at Bad Robot decided to use a sexy shot of Alice Eve to sell Star Trek because sex sells. Oh, the humanity. So, I’m guessing you’re upset with Star Wars: The Return of the Jedi too. What about the poster featuring Princess Leia in her slave girl outfit?

Yep, we knew George Lucas was evil. I mean why not depict Leia in her Endor moon uniform instead of the slave girl getup? Well, because sex sells. It’s a motivating factor. And they used an image of a scantily clad woman to sell a movie.

By the way, your comment seems one sided about scantily clad women. I mean you should be fair and balanced. You should object when a scantily clad man in a move ad is used to sell it. Remember Captain America? (2011) This trailer featured had Agent Carter touch the newly made hunk Steve Rogers bare chest. Video below.

Call the PC police! Marvel uses actor Chris Evans’ bare chest to appeal to women. This could lead to women objectifying men.


Look starting with the original series, all the way to Enterprise., Star Trek has a history of being a sexy show.I could take a month, detailing all the episodes featuring women in scantily clad outfits or sexy outfits. I mean if Alice Eve in her lingerie or bikini upsets you, why watch Star Trek?. By your definition, all those women in sexy outfits causes men to objectify them. I mean there were incidents as recent as Enterprise with T’Pol being rubbed down with decontamination gel to her massage sessions with Trip.

So what was all those mini-skirts, barely there outfits for? Well in the sixties, it was a partial reflection of the times. The sexual revolution. Later, the shows were trying to appeal to a young male demographic. No ratings, no Star Trek. It’s like translating the King James Bible to modern English. Get a bigger audience BUT the message stays the same. Make smart science fiction.


The crux of your complaint with Alice Eve’s underwear lies with your statement. The depiction of Alice Eve, ” perpetuates the psychologically damaging myth that women are for ogling, rather than thinking, feeling human beings.” You then cite a 2009 CNN article detailing that psychologists agree with this idea.

One must read this article carefully to realize that this idea is junk science. First, it wasn’t the overwhelming psychological community that came to this conclusion. It was a study by Dr. Susan Fiske. And she has an agenda. The purpose of the study was to see if images of women in bikini’s cause men to objectify women. Yep, it’s agenda driven.

Second, it’s an incredibly small sample that came to a conclusion that these images cause men to objectify women. IT’S ONLY 21 HETEROSEXUAL MEN. THA’S IT. Third, Dr. Fiske sets no controls. Does she try the tests with say, gay men. What about lesbian women? What about women’s feelings towards men? Nope. See agenda driven.

But here’s the obvious problem with your idea. The Internet and men’s magazines have hundreds of thousands of images of women in bikinis,without clothes, having sex…. etc. In America, are these images causing men who are not predisposed to be sexists to objectify women? The logical conclusion would be if that were the case, then there should be an epidemic of violence against women. And you know the answer here. There is no causative connection between pictures of women in bikinis and violence against women. It’s like accusing video games for gun violence.

I mean do you have any data when the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit comes out, there is an increase in domestic violence cases or any other psychological events? The answer is no.


Yes. That’s correct. I like looking at Star Trek: Voyager’s Seven of Nine (Jerri Ryan) in her silver body hugging uniform. I’ll also say if she wore a Starfleet uniform, I would still find her gorgeous. And yes, I was saddened when here scientist parents were assimilated by the Borg. And I found it fascinating as she struggled to regain her humanity. But not a big fan of the Chakotay romance. It was kind of forced. :-)

133. Trekkiegal63 - April 16, 2013

#132 Basement Blogger:

… Can’t believe I’m having this conversation AGAIN. Have you not read the past, I don’t know, 30 to 40 posts? Because if you had, you would know automatically that you will NEVER, EVER sell me on your argument here. So now that I have that off my chest, let me reiterate everything I’ve already said to the other umpteen dozen sexists who have confronted me on this issue for daring to make a stand against sexism and the objectification of women on this website.

First off, to just say one is not sexist or that one supports women’s rights does not mean that one does not contain sexist elements, or that supporting objectification of women is totally okay because hey, you went to a Lilith Fair concert back in the 90’s and have an Ani DiFranco song on your ipod.

Yes, sex sells. Yet something ‘selling’ doesn’t make it right. Slaves used to sell. Still do, in some ways, as the sex trafficking trade is apparently alive and kicking and young girls are being snatched out of aisle five at Best Buy and never seen or heard from again. I went to my young god daughter’s birthday party at Chuck-E-Cheese not so long ago… do you know they i.d. kids there with bracelets now so no one can snatch them and escape without alarm bells sounding? I mean, that this precaution is now being exercised is great and good for Chuck-E-Cheese, but the fact that its even necessary? Wives used to sell, by catalog, no less. Hard drugs sell even now. Something ‘selling’ does not give it a free pass as being a-okay.

As for sex being a matter of biology. Yeah, and? People do not just have sex to reproduce. In fact, most don’t. Most use it for recreational purposes. The important thing surrounding it is that it be by choice, as in 100% consensual between both participants. And that act, it’s between them, it doesn’t need to be on news at five just because it’s ‘natural’. And women don’t need to be objectified on behalf of ‘natural’ activities either. One does not green-light the other.

And for the last time, just because TOS had scantily clad women, 47 years ago, does not give Hollywood a free pass to continue doing it! I’m sick of that argument. Sick! There’s even a fallacy of logic for it. Ever heard of the Historian’s fallacy? If not, google, but I”m sure you can defer from it’s name as to its meaning.

Of course you pass of the CNN article as junk science, of course you do, because you don’t agree with it. Let me ask you something… do you have a psychology degree? Hmmm, didn’t think so. But, nonetheless, here is a link from the APA (American Psychology Association) to a report they did that details the detrimental side-effects objectification has on women:

…but, let me guess, you know better than the APA as well, correct? And I’m sure they have an agenda? (rhetorical btw, I already know how you’re going to answer, because you would have made up your mind prior to even reading the report… one cannot change a belief system unless they’re open-minded, and want to change, and I knew going into this conversation that your mind seems rather made up. As is mine, btw.).

That magazines like Sports Illustrated and Victoria’s Secrets exists…. again, AND? Same as the ‘sex sells’ thing. Just because it exists does not make it right. Fallacy of logic for that, too. Argumentum ad populum. And like the last fallacy I mentioned, the meaning should be garnered from the name. Just because it’s well known, does not make it correct. At one time, everyone believed the Earth to be flat, and I’m sure there were dozens of hieroglyphs (the BC version of Sports Illustrated) produced to perpetuate that belief, too. Did that make them right? We know they weren’t as we’ve seen Earth from space… it’s distinctly not flat, not even slightly.

Also, there are laws against sexual violence in America, so you can’t make an ‘if that, then this’ correlation with the release of a magazine because of extenuating circumstances, particularly since a big portion of the damage done from objectification is psychological in nature. Just because one may have never been the victim of sexual assault in their lifetime does not mean they’ve never been the victim of sexism or been objectified. NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Lastly, although I have every reason to believe you’re going to disregard the APA report because you discarded the CNN one so readily, and because you seem rather determined to ogle women without the unfortunately side effect of having to feel guilty about it, never mind how womenkind feels about it, but just entertain, just for second that objectification is bad… is it necessary to sell a film? In 2011 the top film of the year was Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 2. No underwear shots there. In 2012 it was The Avengers. Again, no underwear shots. My conclusion, no, it’s not necessary to sell a film.

You stand proud in your self-proclaimed right to objectify women all you want, meanwhile, I’ll stand proud in my right to judge you for it (and not at all favorably, btw), while I continue to believe that objectifying women is not at all justifiable, no matter the many ways a portion of the men on this site use to rationalize it (not to generalize, btw, I know there are some wonderful, respectful men on this site who do not try and rationalize objectification as being a good thing and I appreciate you for it).

134. Keachick - April 16, 2013

I believe this to be valid science.

Within the first 20-30 seconds of meeting a person (or maybe just seeing someone on film – still or otherwise), your subconscious, involuntary physiology has already worked out whether you want to have sex with that person or not. Sometimes the impression is so strong, that the result registers on the conscious, with either a yes or no.

What some people want to do here is to repress/suppress the rights of others to express that feeling/desire. That pisses me off! There are polite, courteous ways of expressing this and ways that are not so good. Teaching courtesy is what is required, not suppression.

As I said, the issue is ultimately about exclusion. I am for positive inclusion.

I have not seen much respect shown here at times.

135. Keachick - April 16, 2013

Our minds have already “sexually objectified” another person within 30 seconds of meeting them.

Star Trek Into Darkness will not sell itself just because it shows a split second shot of Carol Marcus in her underwear. That is false and stupid. You say – no need. I say – why not?

136. John - April 16, 2013

Dr. Marcus is Australian.

137. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 16, 2013

That is NOT an Aussie accent. I presume you are basing your assertion on some other item of information…

138. Curious Cadet - April 16, 2013

@135. Keachick,
“Star Trek Into Darkness will not sell itself just because it shows a split second shot of Carol Marcus in her underwear.”

Then why is it there?

Why is there a split second shot of a woman in her underwear inserted incongruously into an otherwise action oriented trailer?

What purpose does it serve if not to entice the movie going public?

139. Trekkiegal63 - April 16, 2013

#138 Curious Cadet:

Excellent question! It was the exact same thought I had when reading Keachick’s post. Great minds!

As for your question, Keachick…

I say – why not?

To summarize: Because its harmful to women – both in how we are perceived and in our mental health. Whether you want to rationalize that away or excuse it is up to you. You have your own code of ethics, as I have mine.

140. Basement Blogger - April 16, 2013

@ 133


I’m not trying to convince you of my argument. I was debating you. And by the tone of your post, you are one angry person. I mean this discussion went from you being upset with Alice Eve in her underwear to you implying that it somehow leads to children being abducted as sex slaves.

1. I’M BLOGGER, NOT A PSYCHOLOGIST.. Again, Dr. Fiske used a small sample for her study. And it was just 21 heterosexual men and their reaction to images of women in bikinis. She doesn’t follow up and test women to men; lesbian women to women in bikinis etc. It doesn’t require a degree in psychology to see that there is a lack of control.

2. IT’S COMPLICATED. I do agree with you on one point. Sexy images have an effect on people’s brains. For example, here’s a Scientific American report that a different type of objectification goes on. The story says,

“A new study by Kurt Gray and colleagues in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, however, suggests that this kind of objectification might not cause perceivers to see women as mindless bodies but instead cause a transformation in the kind of minds that they perceive.”

I have yet to see scientists make the leap that sexy images lead to attacks on women. I mean when I see a sexy image of a woman, I don’t think of her as an object. I’ve see hundreds of them, and I don’t think negatively of women, their emotions or intellect. And I don’t think the image of Alice Eve in her underwear leads to child sex slaves as you seem to imply.
3. I DON’T BELIEVE IN CENSORSHIP. I believe in free speech. Look the First Amendment was not designed to protect politically correct speech. On contrary, it protects unpopular speech. From this “marketplace of ideas” comes truth and justice.

So when you want to get rid of sexy images, you want to get rid of an idea. The idea of sex, because it is a driving force is just as valid as Andrea Dworkin’s complaints against po____graphy. So watch out. To paraphrase “First Monday In October”, the same end of your political correct eraser can wipe out the speech that you like.

4. DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE AVENGERS? I never said that sex was “necessary” to sell a film. (“Necessary”‘ is your term.) My point is that sex at times is used to sell a film. And I’m not talking about just underwear shots. You then cite two movies. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 2 and Avengers as two movies that didn’t use sex or underwear shots to sell the movies. Hey, you are right about Hallows, Part 2. See, I agreed with you again. BUT Part One had a very sexy fantasy scene between a naked Harry and Hermione where skillfully placed CGI keeps the movie from being R rated.

Okay, there are no underwear shots in The Avengers unless you count Dr. Banner’s accidental nudity because of the Hulk thing. We’re using your standard of talking about pictures of women not men. Sound like a double standard . But anyway, there were sexy images of woman in the film and used to sell the movie.

Exhibit One.
This image of Black Widow (Scalett Johansson) seen in many variations. Note the skin tight costume. And why did they shoot this from her backside? Hmmm…..

Exhibit Two
What about the interrogation of Black Widow scene? I wonder why she was in the cleavage bearing evening dress?

Exhibit Three
Pepper Potts’ (Gwyneth Paltrow) daisy dukes. If it’s so hot why doesn’t Tony Stark wear short shorts?


You say this, “because you seem rather determined to ogle women without the unfortunately side effect of having to feel guilty about it, never mind how womenkind feels about it,”

Um, when did you get the job of speaking for womenkind and how did you get it. Does it pay well?

6. MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP WATCHING STAR TREK. Okay, our leader Anthony Pascale has said many times that no one has the right the challenge a person’s Trek fandom. He’s right. And I’m not saying you’re not a fan.

But it’s clear that images of women in sexy outfits upsets you. And as I pointed out Star Trek has many, many depictions of women in sexy and scantily clad outfits. If it upsets you so much, you should stop watching future Star Trek TV shows and movies. You would be much happier.

7. YOU HATE ME. YOU REALLY HATE ME. Sorry about that Sally Field. Oh, Trekkigal63 you say this ” nice” thing about me,

“You stand proud in your self-proclaimed right to objectify women all you want, meanwhile, I’ll stand proud in my right to judge you for it (and not at all favorably, btw), ”

First, you don’t know me. You’re not my psychiatrist. Because if you were, I would have killed myself by now. I keeeed. I keeeeeeed. But seriously, you ignored my beliefs in women’s rights and go right into a negative analysis of my personality. You have no idea of what kind of person I am. Instead you use your brush to paint me as some type of misogynist who likes to objectify woman by looking at pictures of them. And I didn’t even get to insult you. Maybe I should piss you off by going to the bookstore and buying a copy of Playbloy. I keeeed. I keeeeed

You know what Trekkigal63, I’m not going to judge you. But watch out. There’s a male Trekker who likes looking at Andrea (Sherry Jackson) in “What Are Little Girls Are Made Of?” Go get him. Hold on. I got an idea. Got to a Trek convention where Chase Masterson (Leeta in DS9) is appearing. Ask her about being “objectified” and then lecture the male Trekkers that they should feel guilty about looking at her in her sexy outfits.

8. HAIL TO ALICE EVE’S BIKINI. The image of Alice Eve in her underwear or bikini will not bring down Western civilization no more than Degas’ paintings of nude women in the nineteenth century. If it brings in more males (link) or lesbians to sample Star Trek than I say “Bravo, Alice Eve.” Because these new fans will discover Star Trek’s ideas of adventure, heart and intelligence.

Link. Studios rely on teenagers for big box office.

141. Phil - April 16, 2013

@140. You keep coming back to sex sells…why not market Quinto and Pine to the gay community, if we are headed down that road exclusively…

142. Trekkiegal63 - April 16, 2013

140 Basement Blogger:

There is a difference between censorship and responsibility. A child under a certain age is advised not to be exposed to adult rated films or higher. Are parents practicing censorship by not exposing their toddlers to Friday the 13th or are they exerting responsible parenting?

Children have a difficult time separating realistic depictions from fictional ones as their brains are still developing. Not allowing them to view films which contain adult subject matter is protecting them from the harmful psychological effects of being exposed to things they are not developmentally ready to handle.

The APA, which is the governing body of psychology, have published a report stating that objectification is harmful to women, mentally. And the sad thing is that its starts early, with a Barbie doll, with Disney Princesses, with an unequal male character to female character ratio in children’s programming. It’s in advertisements that anyone of any age has access to. It’s there in magazines, on film, and in television. The oversaturation is harmful, and my solution to the problem would be to keep such images contained to things rated for adults only. Trek, btw, is a family film.

You’re right about one thing, you do not have the right to question my being a fan of Star Trek, particularly because I am 50-years-old have have been a Trek fan for pretty much the bulk of my life.

Yet I’m one of those fans who adhere to the spirit of Star Trek – of evolution, of bettering ourselves, of hope – than I am to images, fashion trends, or the blatant sexism of the 60’s, for which I lived, btw, before you say ‘oh the 60’s weren’t sexist!’ Yes they were. I was there.

In my mind sexism is something to overcome, not to adhere to as a standard, which is probably not what you’re thinking you’re trying to convey by using the ‘but TOS did it’ argument, but I’m letting you know, as one Trekkie to another, that is certainly how it is coming across to me.

I have tremendous hope that Star Trek will one day live the ideals it espouses, which is why I gave the ST2009 film a chance when it came out. I saw the reboot as a way of keeping the elements I loved, while improving the ones I did not, i.e. the scantily clad women. And it some ways it did do that, I do love that Uhura is being given more of an expanded role.

I can say the same to you that you said to me… if scantily clad women is all you watch Trek for, why are you watching Trek, why not Baywatch reruns? It can go both ways, you do realize?

Or perhaps, more likely, that like me, you realize that by being a fan of something you do not have to agree with all of the elements that something may contain, that you have parts that you enjoy and perhaps some that you do not.

Lastly, my qualifications for speaking for womenkind are obvious. I am a woman, for which you are not. I’m also a daughter, a sister, a mother (of a daughter, no less), a god-mother, a cousin, an aunt, and a friend to many other women. We do talk, despite so few films passing the Bachdel test, trust me when I say the reality is that, yes, we talk. We don’t like to be objectified. Some women may not care, or agree with my views, and I’m not speaking for them. I’m speaking for those of us who do.

Lastly, the teenager relationship to box office sales that you pointed out? That is exactly why objectification should not occur in family films. Adolescence is challenging enough on its own merits and teenage girls don’t need the added stresses objectification brings to them.

143. Iva - April 16, 2013

141. Phil – April 16, 2013

@140. You keep coming back to sex sells…why not market Quinto and Pine to the gay community, if we are headed down that road exclusively…


Because ST is geared toward straight white men and only the things they fetishize will be allowed to be in the movie.

That’s why there is this whole – Kirk and Spock sleeping around so you can project yourself into having sex with Saldana/ other female actresses, every female character has to be seen in her underwear and have rankless non-threatening summer dress uniforms etc. situation is being created even though it adds absolutely nothing to the plot of the movie and only takes from it.

144. Disinvited - April 17, 2013

#131. Khan 2.0 – April 15, 2013

Hey remember Shatner said TMP hadn’t been reissued yet at that figure. The advent of home video cassette tapes may have had an effect, but it was the practice back then to re-release films later on down the road. Usually ending up part of a double feature bill to buoy a new release’s ticket take. So TMP may have grossed even more.

145. Basement Blogger - April 17, 2013

@ 142


You really should take more care reading what I write. You continually put ideas attributed to me that I did not say. You say,

“I can say the same to you that you said to me… if scantily clad women is all you watch Trek for, why are you watching Trek, why not Baywatch reruns? It can go both ways, you do realize?”

No where in my love of Star Trek, have I ever said that the reason I watch Star Trek is for the scantily clad women. What you wrote there was disingenuous. If you had carefully read my previous post, my last line was that new fans would discover Star Trek’s ideas of adventure, heart and intelligence. That’s what Star Trek means to me. Adventure, heart and intelligence. It’s Gene Roddenberry’s philosophy that attracts me to Star Trek.

You then say,

“Trek, btw, is a family film.”

That’s not correct. The last Star Trek movie (2009) was rated PG-13, for science fiction action, violence, and brief sexual content. PG-13 is one step below R. And the scene where the Romulan gets impaled by Sulu is not family friendly. And I would not want to explain to a five year old what Kirk is doing with the Orion woman. I will say the movie is appropriate for teenagers.


You then say this,

“Lastly, my qualifications for speaking for womenkind are obvious. I am a woman, for which you are not. I’m also a daughter, a sister, a mother (of a daughter, no less), a god-mother, a cousin, an aunt, and a friend to many other women. We do talk, despite so few films passing the Bachdel test, trust me when I say the reality is that, yes, we talk. We don’t like to be objectified. Some women may not care, or agree with my views, and I’m not speaking for them. I’m speaking for those of us who do.”

Okay, you speak for womenkind. Okay, you’re not THE God but a god of some type. (Sorry Bill Murray.) Should I have my mother, sister and the women I work with worship you? All right, you say speak for earth’s women who don’t like images of women in bikinis.

Hold on. You subject your movies to a test? The Bachdel test? (I think you mean the Bechdel Test.) Link. It kind sucks the enjoyment out watching film, doesn’t it? I just hope for your sake that Dr. Carol Marcus and Lt. Uhura have a conversation and it doesn’t have anything to do with Spock , Kirk or any of the men. Oh, I also hope the conversation between them has the women fully clothed. :-)

Link. Definition of the Bechdel Test for those who don’t know.

146. Khan 2.0 - April 17, 2013

@144 thats an interesting point that needs to be looked into and discussed as i believe ST09 has been appointed highest grossing Trek movie even when adjusted, but it appears thats not the case – it looks like its TMP by a big margin

think there will be a box office thread due soon so we dont have to discuss it inbetween all these strange lengthy posts i dont read lol

147. Trekkiegal63 - April 17, 2013

#145. Basement Blogger:

The condescending tone of your post aside…

Let me ask you something… do you think that this is the only forum I visit? The most wonderful and fabulous thing about the internet is the sheer number of people one can connect with and talk to about shared values. When I was a child that was unheard of, and now, it’s a simple matter of logging on and wham, you’re connected with millions of people from all parts of the globe.

It just so happens, this is not the only forum I frequent. I have a forum I’ve been visiting for sixteen years, it’s one for mothers who were pregnant and gave birth to their children the same year I was pregnant and brought my wonderful daughter into the world. Through the years my connection with these women has been invaluable as we’ve discussed the various stages our children have gone through, and they have offered up insights into the highs and lows of parenting as I have offered up mine. But sometimes, the conversation steers from childrearing onto societal concerns…

I also frequent a community for women of science, as I work in the science industry, and lastly a community for women against sexism in all its many forms.

BTW: the latter community gets somewhere between 10,000 to 20,000 hits a day and to my joy, its not only visited by women, though they do compose the bulk of the population there.

(… and this is not even touching all of the women I know and have discussed these issues with in real life.)

Although I realize you meant your ‘God’ comment to insult and degrade me, but I’m going to address you calmly and rationally in response… I have spent a great deal of time online on all three of the other boards I mentioned listening to accounts of sexism in various forms, sometimes its unwanted attention on a tram from a persistent and belligerent young man who got insulted to the point of yelling profanities when the lady he was trying to pick-up calmly told him she wasn’t interested in conversation. I’ve offered up my own, like when a contact from an affiliate company to the one I work for told me, to my face, that my company is referred to as the ‘Amazon’ company because so many of the upper management positions are held by women. And the list goes on and on and on.

One common theme? A topic that comes up at least once a month on these forums? How Hollywood misrepresents women. How women in film are, for the most part, a few progressive writers and directors notwithstanding, stereotypical caricatures of how women really are.

I absolutely, 100%, do not think it arrogant or ‘god-like’ to represent these women here. I do not think it presumptuous to bring up the issues these women and I have discussed countless times through the years. It’s relevant. Star Trek is part of Hollywood, and although yes, it is wonderful, and at its best moving and engrossing and thought provoking – I wouldn’t be here if it didn’t touch me – it does not come without flaws.

Nor, btw, do I think it unreasonable, to wish there were more films that a) have more than one female character within it and b) those two females share a friendship, because yes, women do that, where c) they have discussions about things that don’t always revolve around men, because yes, women do that, too.

It is absolutely, 100%, NOT unreasonable to ask that women be represented in the movies realistically.

The fact that *you* think it is, that you feel the Bechdel (yes, I made a typo, thank you for pointing that out) is something to dismiss and poke fun at because some women dare to want to see a conversation between two women in a film that doesn’t revolve around men? That is your problem, NOT mine. And yes, it is a problem.

Lastly, 13-year-olds are still children, despite what they would have you believe, so yes, PG-13 films are family films. And just what age is it that you think that objectification has the most powerful impact on young girls? If you said 13, give yourself a prize because yes, that is what happens. It is a formative stage of development, where their focus shifts from their parents to their peers, when they’re dealing with puberty and all of the wild emotions and hormones that come along with it, and it is when insecurities manifest: on body image, on social standing, on pressures to conform, and boy, do they hit hard.

So yes, Basement Blogger, PG-13 films do count as family films.

148. Keachick - April 17, 2013

Star Trek 2009 was rated M by the NZ Office of Literature and Film classifications Board, which is governed by an Act of Parliament. Those not abiding by the rules governing classifications ruling are liable for prosecution.

A M-rating means that no one under 16 years of age may view this film without the presence of parent or guardian. It is likely that STID will receive the very same rating as the first Star Trek film, judging by the level of gratuitous? violence shown in the trailers shown so far. I suspect that what the censors will be looking at carefully is just how much violence is shown, which may even cause the censors here to give this Trek an R-rating.

Therefore, Star Trek is not considered to be necessarily a family-friendly movie.

So the sight of scantily-clad females being “objectified” can be so (psychologically) harming to girls and women in particular, but scenes of brutality and violence, which are FAR more common, are not deemed to be psychological harming not just to girls and women, but also boys and men? It would seem that, in this matter, other countries who represent their men and women to a greater or lesser extent than the MPAA does within the USA, may differ in their understanding and attitude, even to the extent as how a law may be applied.

trekkiegal’s argument is a specious one, notwithstanding all the various links and quotes she brings to this site.

Two things –
1) My husband of 21 years and friend of 32 years (first met 21 February 1981) became violently objectified, an event which has left him pain ridden and career in ruins… please do not underestimate the effect of the biggest and the worst kind of damaging objectification there is, that of brutally assaulting the physicality of another. Rape comes under the category of this as well – violence.

2) I am a woman, a mother of three children. I have been pregnant four times – the third pregnancy required a medical termination. Reason – blighted ovum (missed abortion is the other term for it). After the termination, I spent five days in agony, just as if I had a miscarriage or medically induced abortion of a live embryo/feotus. The painkillers barely did anything at all. A bloody awful experience, literally!

I am WOMAN. You do not speak for me, nor I suspect, do you speak for women like Alice Eve or Zoe Saldana and many others who remain nameless. Seeing a young woman in underwear does not objectify or my daughter. However, all the negative reaction to such a scene just might do that!…:((

149. Basement Blogger - April 17, 2013

@ 147


Again, you attribute ideas to me that are not true. I’ll address them in a minute. But you complain about my tone, and you insulted me directly. See your post 133. And your tone in that post? Condescending. This is how I define calling the pot black. Yep, I am poking fun with some of your more outrageous comments. Claiming to speak for womenkind is one of them since I don’t remember the women of earth appointing you to speak for them.

You say this,

“The fact that *you* think it is, that you feel the Bechdel (yes, I made a typo, thank you for pointing that out) is something to dismiss and poke fun at because some women dare to want to see a conversation between two women in a film that doesn’t revolve around men? That is your problem, NOT mine. And yes, it is a problem.”

Okay, subjecting art to a political correct test to measure how many women have a conversation that does not discuss men is somewhat radical. One of my degrees is in fine arts, it’s music theory so I support art. And I don’t think an artist should force herself to write a scene in a movie just to please a political movement. I mean if you go to movies and count the conversations between two women defeats the purpose of what an artist may want to portray. It’s the idea of the writer that an artist wants you as an audience to pay attention to. So, sorry, I will poke fun at radicals whether be on the left or right.

Second, there is an implication in your post that I don’t see a problem in the way women are portrayed. I agree with you that in some media, women are portrayed badly. I don’t spend my time looking at TV and movies to see the percentage that women are portrayed badly.

You then say this,

” So yes, Basement Blogger, PG-13 films do count as family films.”

Never said that a PG-13 film cannot be a family movie. Again, this is where you put ideas that I never had. However, the last Star Trek movie is not a family movie. You conveniently ignore the scenes in the 2009 movie that may not be appropriate for children Specifically, the violence including Sulu impaling a Romulan and the sex scene between Kirk and the Orion woman. There were other scenes too. The bar fight. Kirk’s grabbing of Uhura’s chest. Uhura stripping down. Etc. If there were any nudity, at least more than underwear and more gore, the movie gets an R rating. And by the way, I don’t object to this stuff, it’s not for children younger than thirteen.


So that people are clear. You say in @ 142 that you speak for womenkind.

You reiterate this by saying this,

“I absolutely, 100%, do not think it arrogant or ‘god-like’ to represent these women here. ”

First, let me applaud you for caring about an issue that you care deeply about. Writing about it and associating with women who agree with you are the type of activities that can change society. I agree with you that it’s important for women to be represented more realistically in media.

But when you make outrageous comments, I will call you on them. And claiming to represent womenkind is one of them. I mean did the women of earth ask you to represent them? Was there a U.N. Resolution saying, “Trekkigal63, you will represent women who get upset with images of women in bikinis?”

Yes, I understand your point about speaking to many woman in your Internet activity. And I never questioned that you went to other sites. Again, another wrong idea you attribute to me. But there are approximately 3.4 billion women on earth not hundreds or even thousands. . Unless those 3. 4 billion women say, “Trekkigal63, you will be our representative”, I will poke fun at this outrageous comment.that you represent womankind.

150. Trekkiegal63 - April 17, 2013

#148 Keachick:

I said, to cut and paste exactly…

Some women may not care, or agree with my views, and I’m not speaking for them.

Read my post more carefully before attacking me for things I did not do. I did not speak for you. I know exactly where you views stand and although I disagree with you, wholeheartedly, in fact, I would not take away your freewill to feel as you do. Kindly recognize that I deserve the same consideration.

Also, I’d like to point out, that the New Zealand rating system is different from the US rating system. From the MPAA website (Motion Picture Association of America):

Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13

…thus, in America, Star Trek is rated for those who are 13 and older.

Also, we’ve had the discussion on violence before. You know I’m opposed to that as well. You are attempting to use a red herring. I’m asking you, nicely, to please stop.

Just because violence isn’t discussed as often as sexism does not mean that I can’t continue to discuss sexism. Because I will. It is an issue I am very, very, VERY concerned with. You are not going to guilt me or deflect me into backing down BECAUSE I NEVER WILL.

Are we understood?

151. Keachick - April 17, 2013

And I NEVER WILL BACK DOWN from referencing the awful objectification of brutality and violence (nothing life affirming), which so readily gets a free pass while scenes showing women in underwear or scenes showing sexual intimacy get torn apart by people like you. If there is such terrible damage done to so many females by movie makers showing scenes of a woman in her underwear, then Lord only knows (and I mean that literally) the terrible damage done to the young minds (and not such young minds for that matter) of being repeatedly, unrepentingly exposed to the explicit gore, brutality, torture, destruction that movie makers, television shows, the most popular games that get sold to be played on XBox 360 etc.

It is NOT a red herring. You have been talking, without let up, about psychological damage inflicted on (young) people by being constantly exposed to various images of semi-naked human females. However you do not speak up about a scene showing a antagonist apparently taking delight in kicking something or more likely someone because he is angry and he can.
Oh, I forgot…such a scene is so necessary for the plot, storyline but of course, how could a scene showing a woman in her underwear, not causing anyone any actual quantifiable harm at all, can’t possibly be necessary to the telling of the story, so why show it? (read my sarcasm).

It is unconscionable hypocrisy to constantly decry one dubious aspect of the film industry while steadfastly ignoring a much more common and insidious aspect of not just the Hollywood movie industry, but of the worldwide movie industry in general. Disgusting!

Deflect you into backing down? Give me a break. Are we understood?

152. Keachick - April 17, 2013

Edit – delete “can’t”. Should read “…harm at all, possibly be necessary…”

153. Trekkiegal63 - April 17, 2013

#149. Basement Blogger:

It’s interesting that you accuse me of attacking you but at the same time completely rationalize your responses to me. Have you reread your very first post addressing me specifically? (post #132) I found that to be exceedingly condescending, and believe it or not when I responded in post #133 I was holding back. I was far more sedate than what I *really* wanted to say in my response to that post because I was trying to be mindful of the rules of this forum.

I would also like to add that you were actually the first to address me specifically. My first post on this thread was a blanket post, my second a response to Keachick, directly. You came at me with attitude, proverbial guns blaring, and I’ve been firm with my responses. Do not mistake an opinion that differs from your own as ‘insulting’ you. I will always speak out on this issue and I will always be firm about it.

Secondly, you have consistently stated that I am misrepresenting your words, then you make statements like this…

But when you make outrageous comments, I will call you on them. And claiming to represent womenkind is one of them.

Let’s read what I said, exactly, again, shall I?

Some women may not care, or agree with my views, and I’m not speaking for them. I’m speaking for those of us who do.

… I believe you are misrepresenting what *I* was saying. Because the above sentence? It carries a disclaimer.

Lastly, back to the subject of sexism in the media.

You said:

I don’t think an artist should force herself to write a scene in a movie just to please a political movement.

Firstly, you say that as if there are a lot of women writers in Hollywood. Let me disabuse you of that notion. There are not. And not for lack of effort on their part. When Brenda Chapman wanted to do a story surrounding around the mother/daughter relationship, and feature a female protagonist who wasn’t at all interested in finding a prince and marrying, she was fired from Pixar for ‘creative differences’. She has mentioned in interviews that she is gratified that Pixar did actually go ahead with her original concept, anyway, despite all of the controversy surrounding her dismissal, in their final version of her film “Brave”, for which she won the oscar for.

And here are some stats for you collected from the non-profit organization

MYTH: Things are looking great for females behind the camera.
FACT: Females behind the camera fall far behind their male contemporaries and are at a distinct disadvantage in the entertainment industry.

Only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. With such a dearth of female representation in front of and behind the camera, it’s a struggle to champion female stories and voices. The Institute’s research proves that female involvement in the creative process is imperative for creating greater gender balance before production even begins. There is a causal relationship between positive female portrayals and female content creators involved in production. In fact, when even one woman writer works on a film, there is a 10.4% difference in screen time for female characters. Sadly, men outnumber women in key production roles by nearly 5 to 1.

And lastly, here is the link to an article written by a woman who had gone to college specifically for script writing and was taught, within her courses, that ‘the public’ did not want to see women conversing and actively discouraged their students to pass the Bechdel Test.


Only to learn there was still something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters).

At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional. Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”

So yes, if I seem like I’m coming down hard on this issue, its because I’ve done A LOT of research on the subject and everything I read just gets me more and more determined to speak out that all of this is going on.

And on the subject of Star Trek and the content? It was rated PG-13, which means that parents are told by the mpaa that the concent of the film is not advised for children under 13 but okay for those 13 and older. And the sexual objectification of women? Not appropriate for 13-year-olds and especially not appropriate for trailers meant for all audiences.

154. Trekkiegal63 - April 17, 2013

#151 Keachick:

Right, so it’s okay to talk about the issue that means the most to you, but its not okay for me to talk about the issue that means the most to me? Yeah, okay.

Let’s look at my demographic, shall we?

I work in the science industry, a role that, in the past, was mostly dominated by males. In my field we had to start a group for the women of our field so we could have a support network because of the sexism inherent in the industry. We meet once a year at a hotel banquet to discuss these issues.

I am the mother of a 15-year-old daughter. We do not play a lot of video games in our house. We do own a playstation, which we mostly use as a bluray player and to stream netflix, though my husband will, occasionally, play games on it. But my daughter and I? Hardly ever. And on the rare occasion we do? Its not violent games, its usually jeopardy or something.

My daughter plays two different sports, one in fall and one in spring, and also plays an instrument in the band at her school. She seldom has time for television. So I really don’t have to worry about over exposure to violence when it comes to her.

At 15, she is at the age when her friends are already dating (my husband and I have a rule that she can’t date until she is 16). Some of her friends already have steady boyfriends. There is a definite pressure placed on her to start dating and to participate in activities she is not ready for.

She has stated for years now that she wants to be a medical doctor… so you know what the most prominent issue she and I face in both of our chosen professions by being women? Sexism.

… so yes, Keachick, I am going to talk about sexism. It is a primary concern of mine. But it is natural that I’m going to champion the cause that directly impacts not only my life, but the life of my child.

You may not feel it a worthy enough cause for repeated discussion. But I do. And when I see sexist comments being made, or someone trying to rationalize or excuse sexism? I’m going to discuss it! I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but you know, it is what it is. You don’t get to tell me what I can and cannot discuss and what I can and cannot hold to importance.

155. Keachick - April 17, 2013

I think that you will actually find that PG-13 means Parental Guidance but no R (as in PGR) which could either mean required or recommended – which is it? it is an important difference. It also means that a person 13 years or under can still see such a movie, with or without the presence of an older person.

I was also surprised to learn that the MPAA give guidelines which are not legally enforceable. Most US cinemas abide by the guidelines set out by the MPAA and have the right to refuse entry, however, there is no law that says that they must.

Not so in countries like the UK or NZ. The law is quite clear and who bears the onus of seeing that the law is upheld. The upside of this is that film makers like Paramount/Bad Robot get to know where they stand in terms of who and who can’t see a film of theirs, once the classification ruling on their particular film has been made. They also get to see how films are classified, what material is considered acceptable and what is not. Moreover, I think that films are judged on a case by case basis, which means that the two scenes that have come under scrutiny here (a) Carol Marcus seen standing in her underwear and (b) John Harrison apparently angrily, mercilessly kicking someone who is already down, will be seen within their entire context of the story, something which none of us has seen.

So why don’t we wait before screaming “sexual objectification” (that Carol Marcus scene) or “gratuitous violence” ie the John Harrison scene, which some of us might conclude is aimed at titillating the testosterone levels responsible not only for sexual response but also aggression, of many a male cinema goer, especially if he is a teenager?

As I said, it is more than likely that STID will receive an M-rating from our own film classifications board, a rating that has legal ramifications for NZ cinema owners. This means that my 10 year old would not be allowed entry into the cinema to see this movie, without me and/or her father being at all times present with her while she watches the film. Can any of you say the same about many an American 10 year old child?

Calling out movie makers for showing scenes and stories that some may find unacceptable and saying they should not show such scenes is not the answer is quite likely unconstitutional and lazy…

156. Basement Blogger - April 17, 2013

@ 153


When you post on this site, anyone can comment on your content. So claiming to make a blanket post does not immunize you from criticism or disagreement. Your initial post was in relation to a discussion that we were having about the evils of Alice Eve’s bikini.

Second, I’ll leave the readers to judge your post at 133 and your tone on the other posts. . But judging me in your posts in a negative way is not what I would call kind words. I believe there is nothing wrong in my criticizing radical comments. If I can have some fun with it, I will.

So let me get this straight. You now want to limit your power to speak for womenkind expressed in 133. You now speak for womenkind who are upset with images of women in bikinis? I don’t know how many of the 3.4 billion women on earth get upset with pictures of women in bikinis. Was there a vote for this post or do you have a special power over those women who are upset of pictures of women in bikinis?

157. Keachick - April 17, 2013

I did not say that what you see as sexism is not worthy enough for discussion, however you referred to my concern over the far greater levels of what is sometimes horrific brutish violence, as a red herring.

Seeing violent images of human beings inflicting pain, suffering, death on other human beings (and perhaps other life as well) could be just as psychologically damaging to the minds of a young person (male and female) as seeing sexual type images or pictures of a partially clad female. If you believe that the latter is reasonable and real, then you cannot deny the possibility and reality of damage perpetrated on people being constantly exposed to images and stories that are violent in nature.

Both are visceral. They can evoke strong emotions, even physiological responses from people… What does continually seeing scenes of violence tell us, our kids, about the value of life in all its diversity?

As I asked before – do we (as a culture, a people) prefer that which is ostensibly life denying or that which can be life affirming?

My kids have seen a lot more violence in movies and on television than they have of anything of sexual nature or of partially dressed females, except their mother.

What your quotes talk about are movies that get flicked off, relegated by many a male poster here as chick flicks, therefore of little or no importance, boring, not a real movie, not a real money earner etc, including people like Red Dead Ryan and Phil, your “pals”… I can hear the comments now – people don’t want to see a bunch of “lesbians” blah, blah, blah (never mind that none of the women in the story may be lesbians at all).

I wrote a scene in my short story outline which had Kirk, McCoy, and other crew members (male and female) taking a spa/jacuzzi together. They were naked. The nastiness and horridness of people’s comments was unbelievable. They accused me of writing homoerotic material – the notion simply never occurred to me. It was just a short scene about the crew relaxing in a jacuzzi. So much for believing in or innocently writing about humans being close and expressing genuine friendship and love in these parts…:(

Wake up! The “feminine” is not liked or understood.

158. Basement Blogger - April 17, 2013

@ 148

Holy mountain parrots! Keachick and I agree on something. Yes, you and I have had some strong disagreements. But on occasion, we can agree. Kind of reminds me of our crazy, goofy project of composing the most posts for a Star Trek site. Link.

1. Trekkers go where no fan has gone before. 2428 posts.

159. Trekkiegal63 - April 17, 2013

#156 Basement Blogger:

As we’ll leave the readers to dissect your post #132.

It’s amazing the circle logic both you and Keachick are using here… so its okay if you insult me, accuse me of having a ‘god complex’ but I can’t make a firm stand disagreeing with you when you talk down to me first. Lovely.


As for anyone can comment? Yes. This is true. And I fully endorse free speech. But comment in a way that is derogatory, facitious and sexist? No. That is against the rules of this forum.

But judging me in your posts in a negative way is not what I would call kind words.

Well, that’s interesting, because I’m feeling pretty judged by you. As one does when they’re openly accused of having a ‘god complex’.

In fact, I felt talked down to by you in your very first post to me, post #132. Here are some highlights:

We, as human beings were created by an act of …. gasp, sex. Let me see if I got this right. In order to propagate the species, human beings must have sex. And somebody made the act pleasurable

Call the PC police!


… and that is but a small sampling.

I don’t know how many of the 3.4 billion women on earth get upset with pictures of women in bikinis. Was there a vote for this post or do you have a special power over those women who are upset of pictures of women in bikinis?

Uh huh, and you dismissed the CNN report for faulty statistics *shakes head*. First off, have you asked even the women you know in your offline life how they feel about this issue?

Secondly, have you bothered to go to chat rooms or message boards and speak with women regarding this issue? With feminists specifically?

Have you ever tried to imagine what life is like surrounding this issue from our side of the fence?

And lastly, of your 3.4 billion sample size, how many of them live in countries that even allow women to even read, let alone request equal treatment and consideration from men (which would probably get them stoned, and publically)?

Was there a vote for this post or do you have a special power over those women who are upset of pictures of women in bikinis?

Was there a vote that gave you right to promote objectifying women in the media?

I was representing a sample of women I’ve met whom I’ve discussed these very issues with. There is nothing wrong with that. It was letting you know that yes, there are women out there, a large group of them, who do not like that we’re so, so often objectified in the media. I have spoke with a fairly large number of them personally. It’s not ‘god-like’ to represent a group of people during a discussion centered around the very topic these women and I have discussed! Quit it with the ab hominem abuse already! It does not make your argument any stronger.

My argument and my opinion, btw, remains unchanged. I stand by everything I’ve said thus far.

160. Trekkiegal63 - April 17, 2013

#157. Keachick:

I did not say that what you see as sexism is not worthy enough for discussion

Oh reeeeaaaalllly? How was I supposed to take this then?…

It is unconscionable hypocrisy to constantly decry one dubious aspect of the film industry while steadfastly ignoring a much more common and insidious aspect of not just the Hollywood movie industry, but of the worldwide movie industry in general. Disgusting!

I bolded the particularly condescending parts for your attention.

What your quotes talk about are movies that get flicked off, relegated by many a male poster here as chick flicks, therefore of little or no importance, boring, not a real movie, not a real money earner etc, including people like Red Dead Ryan and Phil, your “pals”

First off, it is a bit rude to even bring them into this. Secondly, did you ever stop consider that maybe you’re the one holding a grudge and constantly saying things to incite them? The above is a prime example! They haven’t posted in this thread all day and you’re calling them out? Why would you do that? Unless, of course, you are deliberately looking to get under their skin.

I’m truly sorry Phil and Red Dead Ryan that you’re even being mentioned in all of this mess. :(

Also, I want to point out that Phil and Red Dead Ryan have shown far more sensitivity, open-mindedness, and class towards speaking out against sexism than you have, as you’re consistently scolding me for daring to make a stand. Nor are you very accepting of the fact that some of us just do not feel the same way about romcoms that you do. People have different tastes! Remember the post where I asked you not to bring me into the conversation in a very nice way? Where I didn’t want further controversy because I’d had my fill of it and you continued, unabated, anyway, asking me to name specific romances I liked, anyway? It’s things like that! You are far from an innocent victim here, Keachick. At times you are the perpetrator of your own discontent. :(

161. Keachick - April 17, 2013

I don’t believe I have insulted you. I have challenged you.

BTW, I was not referring to you personally when i talked about how prevalent violent images and various kinds of brutality is – far more so than there is of material that might be considered sexist or sexual objectification.

Everyone is negatively objectified by movies depicting violence. What’s more, because violence devalues and dehumanizes, it makes the worst forms of sexual objectification easier…

162. Anthony Pascale - April 17, 2013

Keachick, Trekkiegal63 stop or ban…final warning

163. Keachick - April 17, 2013

Those two males have been anything but sensitive and open minded at times. You have been busy scolding everybody who liked a split second scene of a woman in her underwear. You accuse the producers and others of sexually objectifying women. You kept repeating quotes to back up your assertions about how damaging such scenes are. Even when someone suggests that there may be other reasons for why many young girls suffer from eating disorders and other problems, they are ignored.

trekkiegal – You weren’t around when I write that story outline for Bob Orci’s attention, I might add. How dare you make such a comment? No you didn’t answer my question re a good romance because you dislike all romances being shown on film. Period. That is why you got angry then and now. What’s more, you get on your high horse when someone says that they might. Then you shovel psychology at them, claiming that people like me have a pathology like para-social whatsitsname because I happen to publicly say that I *love* Chris Pine or toward someone who really likes the Spock/Uhura romance.

Who the hell are you? Never mind…I know already…clearly I’m not someone you would have coffee with, unlike the misogynist so-n-so’s who are now on your Christmas card list.

Yes, you are probably right. I am the perpetrator of my own discontent because I dare to stand up to women who can’t cope with the fact that some people (esp. men) like to see a woman in a bikini. The only person denigrating Carol Marcus’s good name is you and you are too stupid to see it.

164. Phil - April 20, 2013

I’m a misogynist? My wife will be upset to hear that….. :-0 is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.