Watch: Kirk Has An Eye For The Ladies In New Star Trek Into Darkness TV Spot ‘Reputation’ + Analysis | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Watch: Kirk Has An Eye For The Ladies In New Star Trek Into Darkness TV Spot ‘Reputation’ + Analysis April 29, 2013

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

Another new USA TV spot is now online. The commercial called "reputation" has some of the sexier side of the Star Trek Into Darkness movie mixed in with the action. Watch it below plus caps and analysis of the new bits (minor spoilers).

 

 

"Reputation" TV Spot

Here is a brand new commercial that will start running this week in the USA called "Reputation." So far we just have the SD version.

NOTE: There is another new TV spot that began running last night that we are trying to get a hold of as well.

 

 

"Reputation" TV SpotAnalysis  (SPOILERS)

 

scroll down

 

The commercial contains a few new elements, here is a breakdown of what’s new.


Helloooooo ladies shot of Kirk and Spock at Starfleet HQ


Kirk tries to avert his eyes from Dr. Carol Marcus in her Starfleet undies

Dialog

Kirk: I have a reputation?

Marcus: Turn around!


An Admiral and a Captain walk into a bar…
(Kirk and Pike have a drink at a San Francisco Bar)

Dialog (translation)

Pike (voice over): Do you have an idea what a pain you are (not from same scene as shown above)

Kirk: I thought that was why you talked me into signing up in the first place.


Kirk and Spock talk to Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller)

Dialog

Kirk: You can’t go after him but we can

 

 

More Trailers/TV Spots and Analysis

Check out TrekMovie’s other analyses:

 

WARNING: SPOILER COMMENT POLICY

Comments for articles with spoilers allow discussion of spoilers in the comments section – but try to limit to spoilers discussed in the article.

Discussing potential spoilers not posted at TrekMovie.com and/or linking to other spoilers will result in deletion and instant ban.

Comments

1. Underhill - April 29, 2013

I shall be last.

CAN’T STAY AWAY FROM ANY TREK NEWS!!!

Must have willpower!

2. Captain, USS Northstar - April 29, 2013

First?

More and more bits are revealed — I am SOOOO ready for this movie!

3. Geodesic17 - April 29, 2013

Pike’s uniform looks familiar. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XTKNLgxeexo/TLf7rGfe5zI/AAAAAAAAAbA/Lot7fR8k-sk/s1600/James_Kirk,_2270s.jpg

4. BH - April 29, 2013

“I have a reputation?”
>>smashcut<<
"Will fit, will fit!"

Ugh. He sure isn't JJ Subtlety.

5. BH - April 29, 2013

Sorry, reverse it, but still the same.

6. ME!! - April 29, 2013

What is it with Kirk’s face in this film? Every time I turn around his face looks greasy. This time it’s the shot with Spock…who doesn’t look greasy. Wash up there, Captain!

7. Phil - April 29, 2013

Well, that settles that. Alice Eve is the gratuitous T & A shot.

8. Trekkiegal63 - April 29, 2013

#7 Phil:

Yup, pretty much *sigh*.

9. Keachick - April 29, 2013

Why the dull, dull, dull uniforms?

10. Dr. Image - April 29, 2013

Because they’re cool. (What do you want? Red doorman’s uniforms?)

11. zirclet - April 29, 2013

I believe he says “…talked me into signing up…” instead of “joining Starfleet” as you’ve capped it. Heaven forbid they use a nerdy word like “Starfleet” in this campaign.

12. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 29, 2013

@6. ME!!

If you mean Kirk’s face is shiny, then it’s probably meant to be sweat. And, in general, you shouldn’t be able to see sweat on Spock’s face – Vulcan physiology… If you compare Kirk’s face to Spock’s in TOS and the TOS movies, you will see that Spock’s face was always more matt than Kirk’s.

JJ and company didn’t seem to go to the same lengths in the first film that Roddenberry and company went to in showing Vulcan skin to be different from Human, but in this clip at least, they are.

13. Phil - April 29, 2013

@10. Floral prints, maybe? Considering the source, maybe Starfleet should be clothing optional….

14. William Bradley - April 29, 2013

These ads are pretty random and generic.

I don’t get a coherent sense for the marketing of this film.

15. T2 - April 29, 2013

At a quick glance 9 seconds in, I did a double-take…Pike resembled De Kelley there for just a split second.

16. RoobyDoo - April 29, 2013

@15, I had exactly the same reaction.

17. Sonak - April 29, 2013

What is with those stupid hats?

18. Basement Blogger - April 29, 2013

Alice Eve is a beautiful woman. There I said it, Like Kirk, I looked. Sorry for my maleness. It’s a miracle that all those ancient naked depictions of Venus, to the nude paintings of French painter Degas to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue didn’t bring down Western civilization.

19. Marja - April 29, 2013

No, #10, Dr Image, I want uniforms that reflect the SKY, not West Point or the Nazis. I am bummed in the extreme that they are not dark blue, the color of the sky when the stars first come out. Bland color and some demmed bland backgrounds – look at that shot of Spock and Kirk in the Admiral’s office. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

#17, Sonak, they are based in the past diagrams of uniforms in an old “Starfleet Manual” as someone pointed out a few days ago. I’m not crazy about them, but at least the costume designer did some research. Geodesic, I’m sure you noticed the resemblance the first time we saw Pike in his admiral’s uniform at Kirk’s promotion ceremony! :)

#18, BB, I enjoy Michelangelo’s “David,” but you have to admit, there is not equal representation of the male nude, which is equally beautiful to the female nude, in art after the Renaissance. You have to go back to the ancient Greek Kouros and Greek and Roman god and goddess sculptures for that.

Don’t be sorry for your maleness; at least you expressed it tastefully. I wish I had an equal opportunity to comment on Mr. Quinto as far as his beauty in his underwear. *Tastefully,* mind you.

20. Phil - April 29, 2013

@18. Well, yeah, she is beautiful. That’s not the point – the issue in how you show off the human form still revolves around the context it’s presented in. One would expect that if any crew member, regardless of gender, had to strip down in the back of the shuttle to change gear that it’s not appropriate for the ships commander to take advantage of the opportunity to check out the goods. If it’s appropriate to the story to have Kirk and his subordinate being intimate, then by all means, let them, in a fashion that’s appropriate to the situation. Presenting it in a fashion that’s just there to give Kirk his wonka wonka moment just reinforces the idea that harassment is okay in the future, too, that women have ‘their place’, and in the case of Trek just cheapens the whole idea that we have gotten past sexism and bigotry.

This has been debated at length, and I’m not getting into a protracted debate here. I get you are okay with some objectification. My wife was the victim of sexual harassment at work, from a male colleague who behaved in a very similar fashion to this Kirk. I frankly don’t care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms – when it’s brought to the workplace it’s harassment, regardless of the genders participating, and there is no place for it in a professional environment. Seeing it presented as acceptable behavior on the screen with no consequences for those actions sends the wrong message.

21. Marja - April 29, 2013

Here I go with another PS – I forgot to say, I like the CUT of the uniforms – the high collar and close cut is reminiscent of Coast Guard and Navy officers’ summer Dress A white uniforms. And one only has to remember the female reaction to Richard Gere’s turn as Ensign Mayo, fresh from OCS graduation, in his white uniform – many of us were just gaga – and I always loved going to officers’ weddings in the summers, because they wore those wonderful uniforms. Dashing.

It’s just the color and the super-high-crowned hats that I find a turn-off.

22. Trekkiegal63 - April 29, 2013

#18 Basement Blogger:

You know, I had a professor in college who once attributed the fall of the Roman empire to mispent use of recreation and leisure. It’s an interesting theory, don’t you think?

23. Aurore - April 29, 2013

@ 18 Bernie.

Take a close look at Miss Eve ‘s lips when you hear : “Turn around!”.

Pay attention.

You have my permission, you evilll sexist!

:)

24. Trekkiegal63 - April 29, 2013

#20 Phil:

Very well said.

…I’m very sorry to hear your wife experienced that. :(

25. msn1701 - April 29, 2013

LOL Kirk’s reputation is part of Star Trek lore. Of course, most of it is made up. That’s how it is for the best captains. Like Captain Jack Sparrow for instance – HUGE reputation, mostly exaggerated.

26. Random Thots - April 29, 2013

Obviously, CM has a thing for JTK.

Spock needs to go on a diet. And get rid of the perma-smirk. I accept Quinto as the actor that plays nuSpock and he does a great job at it. But he just doesn’t look like the Spock I grew up with (and got choked up over at the end of TWOK).

27. Aix - April 29, 2013

“Fight for our future”
*vomits*

28. sean - April 29, 2013

There was a recent interview with JJ where he said it was important to him that the T&A be equal, and that we get some Kirk in his undies as well.

29. Unwanted - April 29, 2013

@27. You have a problem with that? That seems petty to me, especially after “Watch your future’s end” from First Contact (which was used in the trailers). Fight for our future at least sounds like James Kirk, a man who said “Risk is our business”.

30. pock speared - April 29, 2013

where is the clip that shows spock screaming at the “window”? it’s foreign…

31. pock speared - April 29, 2013

I am always amazed at the prudence and foresight some have in being able to hate a film they have not seen.

32. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 29, 2013

@30. pock speared

That’s in the Message from John Harrison for Spock. Here is the Trekmovie link: http://trekmovie.com/2013/04/24/john-harrison-has-a-video-message-for-mr-spock-scotty-intl-poster-uk-premiere-contest/

@31. I completely agree with you!

33. Marja - April 29, 2013

30, It was posted in TrekMovie about a week ago, maybe a little less.

It’s John Harrison’s “MESSAGE TO SPOCK”

It’s riveting …

34. Aix - April 29, 2013

@29 Oh, chill! I know it’s all marketing. It’s not even the worse line from the trailers so far. “Darkness is coming” is the one to beat. Haha!

35. Aix - April 29, 2013

*worst

36. Aurore - April 29, 2013

Bernie,

Did you read this before:

(Link if authorized here):

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technology/sci-tech/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-into-darkness-a-bit-sexist/story-fn5iztw3-1226627239282

I’m suprised the shot of Miss Eve was not talked about…with such a title.
But, it will probably come ; “they” seem to be “looking for it”, these days…

But, it might just be an impression on my part…Now, why would they do that, anyway, I wonder? What do you think?

(Not that I personally have a problem with the shot myself as I stated elsewhere on the site.).

37. pock speared - April 29, 2013

@32
Thanks!

38. Marja - April 29, 2013

20, Phil,

I wholeheartedly agree with you on workplace harassment; harassment affects far more people than the one harassed, spouses are a prime example. So I am with Trekkiegal in expressing my sympathy. I’ve been there myself and it is very painful, especially the way that some others in the work environment expect the woman [or other victim of the act] to “have a sense of humor” and “get over it” and in the case of women in a “traditionally male workplace” the old, “well, what did you expect!?”

I want to make *absolutely clear* that I was responding strictly and only to Basement [#18] re: his actually tasteful statement about an actor’s beauty in my post at #20.

As you can imagine, while I admire the male form, I certainly wouldn’t want to see Spock in his underwear [in a similar situation to Marcus in the clip] with a female he hardly knew! [However, if a scene depicting him and Uhura were in a private setting, I would enjoy that because it would be appropriate to the scene.] That actors are often required to shuck some clothes is acknowledged part of the profession, but I don’t like crude objectification on a bulletin board read by both sexes. Admiration – tastefully expressed, I hope – is okay. I hope I have not offended you.

I have never agreed with the depiction of Kirk as a “horndog” – at the bar in Riverside, maybe, b/c it was a scene showing what a jerk he could be. He sure got slapped down for that. At least then. In that scene.

39. Marja - April 29, 2013

* correction, my post at #19. Sorry

40. Basement Blogger - April 29, 2013

@ 20

Phil says this,

“This has been debated at length, and I’m not getting into a protracted debate here. I get you are okay with some objectification.”

Don’t attribute objectification to me. You don’t know me, Phil. Sir, you have not psychoanalyzed me. When you get a degree in psychology and have examined, me then you can judge me on how I feel about women.

Any image whether it’s sexual or say even violent has an effect on a mind. The question is “What is the effect?” A recent study published int the Journal of Sexual Medicine suggests that po*******graphy has a minimal effect on adventurous sexual acts by young people. (Can’t link it because of the filter.) The point is that it is complicated as to what effect if any negative effect these images have on people.

Oh and by the way, please go after those Trekkers who find other women in Trek attractive. Please say they are objectifying women. I’m not the only one who found Eve attractive. . But hey, next time somebody says how good looking Chase Masterson is, go lecture them. Since there is a loud contingent of Rick Berman haters here, I suggest you give them more ammo and lead the protest for adding Seven of Nine to Voyager and the times T’Pol was scantily clad in Enterprise. And then you should lecture those Trekkers who found those women attractive. I mean you should say to those Trekkers who found those women appealing that they are objectifying them.

As for sex in art, I don’t have a problem with it. You see, I believe sex is a natural and good thing. It’s part of our humanity. But leaping from a humorous sexy scene in a movie, to sexual harassment is the kind of political correctness that I want no part of. Because there will be a time, artists will have to run things by you, to see if they’re PC.

41. pock speared - April 29, 2013

Sci fi without sex is a technical manual.

V’ger was a vagina, Klingons are penis heads, we’ve been seeing Uhura’s hot red panties for 45 years, Spock was a iconic sex symbol in the 60′s and HornDog Kirk has been banging space babes since day one…

I’m a little confused by the outrage.

42. Jack - April 29, 2013

This clip is fun.

I’m with you on this, BB.
________

“As you can imagine, while I admire the male form, I certainly wouldn’t want to see Spock in his underwear [in a similar situation to Marcus in the clip] with a female he hardly knew.”

Are you guys kidding with this stuff? Americans really are prudes. Yeesh.

43. Marja - April 29, 2013

26, Random Thots,
“Spock needs to go on a diet. And get rid of the perma-smirk. I accept Quinto as the actor that plays nuSpock and he does a great job at it. But he just doesn’t look like the Spock I grew up with (and got choked up over at the end of TWOK).”

The “perma-smirk” is part of the shape of Quinto’s mouth. Check it out when he’s not talking or smirking or smiling.

Here’s the one from just before Spock tried to kill sassypants Kirk.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoKzBGX9RWT4ATKeJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?bac

and another pic of “stoic” Spock.
http://media.photobucket.com/user/tatianna49/media/7e0131ff.jpg.html?filtersterm=zachary%20quinto%20spock&filtersprimary=images&filterssecondary=videos&sort=1&o=20

Yes, I would prefer the “original” thinner Quinto [he jogged and practiced yoga to stay fit for the most part], but he said he had to work out a LOT to play his fight scenes with Cumberbatch. It is amazing what 15 pounds of muscle will do to an actor on the big screen, jeez. But rest assured, it’s muscle.

44. heyberto - April 29, 2013

I really don’t like the hats.

45. Basement Blogger - April 29, 2013

@ 36

Aurore,

I just read that article again. . And I’ve watched the video embedded. Looked for the term were Abrams says Star Trek is a “wee bit sexist.” Frankly, I could not find it. If you see it in the article, let me know. I know in the video, the interviewer seemed concerned that the women were depicted as love interests. Then Abrams said something about Eve in her underwear and Kirk being in his. If the sexist part comes from the fact that according to the reporter that the women were love interests then frankly that headline is disingenuous. I mean Abrams did not say his movie was sexist. Again, I’ll admit with my bad eyes, I might have missed him using the phrase.

46. Basement Blogger - April 29, 2013

@ 22

Trekkiegal63,

Just looked at a wikipedia article about the fall of the Roman Empire. Had trouble finding a historian to say that naked statues of Venus caused it. Again, the fall of the Roman Empire is complex kind of like the effect on the mind of sexual images. Oh, and by the way, I think the Visigoths had something to do with the fall of the Roman Empire. If you can find a historian who has done serious research that naked statues of Venus caused the fall of the Roman Empire, please link it.

47. Unwanted - April 29, 2013

@22. You talking about the Eastern Empire or the Western Empire? Cause several centuries separate the end of the two, who had split before the fall of Rome.

The fall of the western empire is largely attributable to rampant government corruption and outsourcing their military to people who harbored huge resentment against Rome.

The Eastern Empire fell mostly due to a plague in the middle of a military campaign to reconquer the western empire.

Their art, leisure, and recreation had no provable impact on the empire, in respect to its fall, no matter what your professor thought.

48. Michael Towns - April 29, 2013

The Visigoths merely took advantage of Rome’s decay. They weren’t the cause of it.

49. DonDonP1 - April 29, 2013

@4 Beats me.

50. Unwanted - April 29, 2013

@48. Never said they caused the decay, but they ended Rome pretty effectively, after they had been hired by Rome to act as their army, and gained access to the more advanced technology of Rome.

51. Jonboc - April 29, 2013

#40. “But leaping from a humorous sexy scene in a movie, to sexual harassment is the kind of political correctness that I want no part of. Because there will be a time, artists will have to run things by you, to see if they’re PC.”

Well said Basement Blogger.

52. The Sinfonian - April 29, 2013

Actually, the Goths simply replaced the last Roman ‘emperor’ with a Gothic leader. It was a continuum. The “Roman Empire” at 476 didn’t have much left but Latium at the time. But although Rome as an empire ended, it never ended linguistically. The continuum from Vulgar Latin to the languages of French, Spanish and Italian comes without any gaps. And the French Norman invasion of 1066 brought that same continuum back to Britain. And Britain begat the United States. Some might argue, Rome lives and still rules.

53. Sick of Militant Feminists - April 29, 2013

This sexual harassment thing is something that should be talked more. In society, that is. Namely, are we EVER going to get, at least in mindset, anywhere near a Star Trek-like future if all we can think about is sex and money? If so, we’ll end up like The Ferengi, not the Federation.

On the other hand, the mindset of a lot of women needs tweaking these days too. More and more, in an attempt to assert their strength and rights as a woman not to be objectified, women in today’s society go so far as to condemn all compliments, and ANY non-business (meaning any contact not strictly on the topics of their professional projects) contact, in or out of the workplace, as sexual harassment. Some even misuse sexual harassment as a tactic to bully men they don’t like, or men in general. This needs to stop, or we’ll become The Terran Empire and not The Federation.

A woman need not make it her mission to destroy men, whether deserving or not, to prove her independence and female power.

54. Trekkiegal63 - April 29, 2013

#40 Basement Blogger:

You said:

A recent study published int the Journal of Sexual Medicine suggests that po*******graphy has a minimal effect on adventurous sexual acts by young people

And yet the APA (American Psychology Association) has published a paper claiming that the objectification of women is detrimental to our psychological health. Which you know, as I’ve linked you to it before. But here it is again (perhaps read it this time?)

http://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual-objectification.pdf

Now let’s see, who is the more legitimate source here, the APA, a national board of credited and renown psychologists ranging in population of about 134,000 professionals or some group who publish a ‘journal of sexual medicine’ (no agenda in that name, no sir! <- sarcasm)? Yeah, I think I'll put my stock in the APA!

Excerpt from above link:

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

In other words, Phil is not the one incorrect here. That would be you. Again. Gee, so not stunned I may die from being not stunned.

55. Commodore Adams - April 29, 2013

I am seeing this on Wed the 15th, I can’t wait till the 17th, especially with all these tidbits coming out. I will not be able to resist.

56. Trekkiegal63 - April 29, 2013

#47 Unwanted:

What you’ve listed as the fall, and my late professor’s theory… not entirely mutually exclusive. ;)

57. mhansen0207 - April 29, 2013

#40-Basement Blogger

BRAVO sir. That has to be the most well-written and logical post in this entire thread. Thanks for actually making sense.

58. Unwanted - April 29, 2013

@54. See I wouldnt trust the APA any farther than I could throw the Empire State Building, not saying I trust BB’s source any more, but the APA does have an agenda and always has, which is to get people buying the dangerous pharmaceuticals they promote, like the anti-depressant Paxil, which CAUSES suicidal thoughts and behaviors, so much so that it is listed in the side effects. That isnt even the only one of those drugs that has effects like that, but the APA, FDA, and AMA all keep approving these things, just to get at that green paper in your pocket, and without the slightest concern for your health or safety.

59. Trekkiegal63 - April 29, 2013

#46. Basement Blogger:

You need only google the following names:

This one should be rather easy to remember… Nero (the real one). Please pay special attention to his priorities as emperor and why he was rumored to have ‘started a fire’.

Then, this name here: Caligula. Please pay special note of his priorities prior to assassination and his more interesting… hobbies.

Or, if you’re too tired to google, you may just rent the “art film” (and I use the term loosely) “Caligula”. It would be right up your alley, I’d imagine, given the content. And, if not, then at the very least it stars a young Malcolm McDowell and Helen Mirren and can be used in the playing of ‘Six Degrees of William Shatner” (as Kevin Bacon is so passe).

60. Trekkiegal63 - April 29, 2013

#58 Unwanted:

Problem with your theory? There are no ‘drugs’ involved with the topic at hand nor the paper I linked. And the only treatment? Not objectifying women. Radical, I know, but you know, Occam’s Razor.

61. Unwanted - April 29, 2013

@60. One paper does not change whether that pile of refuse has an agenda or not, which is what was being discussed as you said that BBs source had an agenda just because their viewpoint disagreed with yours. What I was discussing was only if the APA had an agenda, which they do, not any of the overblown histrionics going on about supposed objectification of women, which you can’t prove the movie does until you see it, underwear or no, after all what if Kirk strips down to his underwear in the same scene, isn’t that objectifying men? Or are you one of those people who only sees objectification if it happens to women? Perhaps, just perhaps, the marketing team objectified Alice a small bit in the commercials, nobody who actually made the movie was involved in that, and I am quite sure, judging by the now audible “turn around” to go with the WTF face on Alice that the scene plays out as Carol being the first woman to slap Kirk down for ogleing her, which is probably why he falls for her.

62. Trekkiegal63 - April 30, 2013

#61 Unwanted:

And since the new movie has not been released in my country as of yet (the US), what makes you think I was speaking of the movie and not the trailers, such as, I don’t know, the one in this post, specifically?

But to clear up any confusion, I was talking about the above trailer in this post, where Eve is in her underwear and Pine is not. Nor, I’d like to point out, has Pine been thus clothed in any of the trailers so far, whereas Eve has been seen in her skivvies in three… in other words, ‘equal opportunity’? Bit of a joke, really, content of the movie notwithstanding.

63. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 30, 2013

@60 & @61

In an interview Mr Abrams did in Sydney, he said “…as Alice Eve’s character gets down to her underwear, so does Kirk. There is equal opportunity flesh…”

This video interview has already been linked to on this thread by @36. Aurore.

64. Phil - April 30, 2013

@40. Oh, please, spare me your false outrage. You have spent weeks defending the peep show mentality, and when someone calls you on it, you’re shocked, shocked, that someone has offended your delicate sensibilities. Go back and read what I wrote, instead of picking and choosing bits and pieces to defend your ‘us vs. the PC police’ worldview. What part of you being free to do what you want didn’t you understand? You can look at all the naked women you want, or naked guys, for that matter. The distinction you ask? The image you defend allows that she may not be able to freely consent to the activity. That is wrong, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If she can, and consent is shown, I don’t care if she is being hogtied and bullwhipped. Extreme example, you say? Go watch The Secretary sometime. It’s a lifestyle I won’t even pretend to understand, but there it was on the big screen, skin and all, and no complaint from me that it’s available for viewing.

One of these days I suspect that a wife, mother, daughter, or sister may drive home the point to you that harassment is unappreciated. Not everyone agrees with your assertion that this does no harm. When that day comes then you may understand that your right to titillation ends when it does harm to others.

65. cd - April 30, 2013

Pine is greasy/shiny because lens flares are just not enough.
Quinto may have put on muscle, but the effect is not good. Now he looks even less like Leonard Nimoy than he did before.
And the Nazi uniforms don’t help.

66. Trekkiegal63 - April 30, 2013

#63 ObsessiveStarTrekFan:

The problem, however, is not the movie, which I haven’t seen. It’s the marketing. Eve has been shown in her underwear in three separate trailers now. Pine, none.

Thus, in the marketing of this movie she has been objectified, Pine has not. The movie may very well be equal opportunity. The trailers we’ve seen thus far? They haven’t been. By any stretch of the imagination.

67. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 30, 2013

65. cd

I suggest you re-watch TOS. If it was an emotional scene, you will find Kirk was red faced and/or shiny faced. This is not a new lens-flare induced phenomenon.

Yes, I prefer a more slender Spock, but I’m sure I’ll adapt.

I don’t mind the grey uniforms at all.

68. Donald Carlson - April 30, 2013

I’m not really bothered if it turns out to be Khan and the Botany Bay survivors. From what I’ve seen so far, BC’s performance will be amazing, enough to make this a classic Trek movie. We’ve had to endure some clunkers in both the TV and movie series, and I don’t expect this to e counted among them

69. somethoughts - April 30, 2013

I see the pro pants, anti bikini, cover your bodies, objectifying posters are back trying to change western culture into communist attire and beliefs.

Remember we live in the part of world that has playboy, maxim, victorias secret, penthouse, adult movies, cheerleaders, beauty contests etc. Did you guys grow up under a rock? We love our space babes and popcorn, quit crying over your past wounds and understand this is western culture, resistance is futile, adapt or gtfo :)

You guys never been to university parties, tail gates or gentleman clubs?

70. Buzz Cagney - April 30, 2013

Quite easily the most militaristic looking Trek uniform ever. Roddenberry would detest it. I do too.
And those hats? Some failed delivery bound for North Korea ended up at Paramount or something?

71. Basement Blogger - April 30, 2013

Trekkiegal63, @ 59, @ 54

@ 59

i just looked at Nero and Caligula, the emperor not the Romulan over at wikipedia. Um…. nothing in those articles says “statues of a naked Venus caused the fall of the Roman Empire.” Sorry. Please find me a source that says “statues of a naked Venus” caused the fall of the Roman Emprire.

In the meantime, I trust Unwanted and Michael Towns opinions. ( @ 47, 48) They seem to know Roman history. Hold on. What did our favorite archaeologist have to say about the fall of the Roman Empire? (I’m not talking about Indian Jones)

” I wonder if the Emperor Honorius watching the Visigoths coming over the seventh hill truly realized that the Roman Empire was about to fall. This is just another page in history, isn’t it? Will this be the end of *our* civilization? Turn the page.” Captain Jean Luc Picard.

Right, .Picard says nothing about naughty pictures of women causing the fall of the Roman Empire. It’s probably not the best quote on the fall of the Roman Empire since Picard had that Borg thing on his mind. .

And thank you for the movie recommendation. Can’t say that I’ve seen Helen Mirren in Caligula. My favorite Mirren performances are 2010 (1984); The Debt (2011) and the HBO mini-series Elizabeth I (2005). As Elizabeth she gives a rousing rendition of the speech to the troops at Tilbury.

@ 54

I think a little music response is in order here. How about some music from the father of bossa nova, Antoino Carlos Jobim?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEkMwotUuic

72. WillH85 - April 30, 2013

Oh he gonna hit that.

73. Buzz Cagney - April 30, 2013

As to seeing Eve in her kecks, well, she’s awfully pretty ‘n all but having only known Bibi in the role its kind of like going back through the family album and finding a shot of your mom in a go-go skirt and thigh length boots. You wouldn’t really know where to look, would you! Luckily though, Eve isn’t my mom- i’ll know exactly where to look.
So shoot me!

74. rangerone314 - April 30, 2013

The Big Spoiler is the Trek spot “I Allow it” where Kirk is talking to Khan, and Kirk says give me one good reason, and Khan says I’ll give you 72 and they’re on your ship.

SS Botany Bay: “Space Seed”. Khan + 12 died + 30 frozen females + 42 frozen males

I guess Khan + 72 survived in the new timeline, also.

75. KirksLove - April 30, 2013

I need a shirtless Harrison scene. There I said it.

76. Aurore - April 30, 2013

45. Basement Blogger – April 29, 2013
“@ 36

Aurore,

I just read that article again. . And I’ve watched the video embedded. Looked for the term were Abrams says Star Trek is a “wee bit sexist.” Frankly, I could not find it. ”

___________

I couldn’t either.

Hence my surprise at the title ; as you said, and if I am not mistaken( I watched the video a few days ago, ‘haven’t re-watched it since) , it is Mr. Abrams who brought up the underwear shot in the conversation. When I read the title of the article, I thought its author would have had questions about it.

“If you see it in the article, let me know.”

I am still looking for it. But, if I do, I will.

” I know in the video, the interviewer seemed concerned that the women were depicted as love interests. Then Abrams said something about Eve in her underwear and Kirk being in his. If the sexist part comes from the fact that according to the reporter that the women were love interests then frankly that headline is disingenuous. I mean Abrams did not say his movie was sexist. Again, I’ll admit with my bad eyes, I might have missed him using the phrase.”

Thank you ; once more, I do not know where the title of the article (judging by the content of the embeddded video) came from.

But, for some reason, I expect more of those, in the coming days…

We’ll see.

77. Basement Blogger - April 30, 2013

@ 64

Phil says,

“, One of these days I suspect that a wife, mother, daughter, or sister may drive home the point to you that harassment is unappreciated. Not everyone agrees with your assertion that this does no harm. When that day comes then you may understand that your right to titillation ends when it does harm to others.”

First, please disagree with me. But you said I objectified women. And I didn’t get to call you any names. :-) You don’t know me. Again until you get your psychology degree, examine and analyze me. you don’t know how I feel about women, their aspirations, rights and emotions. .

Right to tittilaiton ? Looking for that in the Constitution. Can’t find it. Still looking for the news that Alice Eve’s bikini causes sexual harassment. Suggest you start a Kickstarter campaign to fund the research. Topic: Research the conclusion that Alice Eve’s bikini causes sexual harassment. Just remember that the same end of your PC eraser that wipes out Alice Eve’s bikini can also wipe out speech you may like. What next? The Vagina Monologues?

Phil,, here’s some more fuel for your rage. Gwyneth Paltrow. She showed up at the Iron Man 3 Premiere in this sheer dress showing off her assets. Gasp. She probably didn’t wear underwear. Now be fair. Go criticize her for being sexual and causing sexual harassment. And don’t forget the Iron Man fans who found her premiere dress sexy. Tell them their right to titillation ends because it causes harm to others. Go go them..

The evil Gwyneth Paltrow at the Iron Man 3 Premiere.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/gwyneth-paltrow-sheer-dress-iron-man-3_n_3153520.html

78. Trekkiegal63 - April 30, 2013

#71 Basement Blogger:

It’s called connecting dots, dear. Or, you know, a simple mathematical equation.

1 + 1 = 2

Did I claim naked statues of Venus caused the fall? No, I said specifically, quoting an old professor, ‘misuse of recreation and leisure’.

1. Caligula, who, to quote Biography.com… “He delighted in watching torture and executions, and spent his nights in orgies of gluttony and passion.”

+

2. Nero, who, to quote Biography.com… “But after Agrippina’s murder, Nero descended into a hedonic lifestyle that was marked not just by lavish self-indulgence but tyranny.”

=

Two, of many, ill-equipped, hedonistic rulers of an empire teetering on the brink of collapse. A trait Nero and Caligula shared? They didn’t think anything was wrong with objectifying women, either. Indeed not, in fact, they took perverse delight in it.

… what happened to both of them almost makes me want to believe in karma (though, as a scientist, I’m not one normally to take things on faith).

Also, “One Note Samba”. Clever. And, incidentally, A sentiment I share when I think of you. :)

79. Jerry Modene - April 30, 2013

The uniforms aren’t bad, but I don’t like the hats. Then again, if you look closely at Jeffrey Hunter’s quarters in “The Cage”, you’ll see *his* hat there on a shelf. Not as high-peaked as these, but still a standard officer-type hat (which neither he nor anyone else was ever shown wearing).

80. Trekkiegal63 - April 30, 2013

#77 Basement Blogger:

It’s so interesting that you bring up Gweneth Paltrow’s dress because she had the most fascinating thing to say about it on Ellen (as covered by the Hollywood Reporter)…

The actress told the host that she went from “being the most beautiful to the most humiliated in one day.” She was just named People Magazine’s Most Beautiful Woman of 2013.

Humiliated. Interesting adjective choice, don’t you think?

APA, accurate.

81. Basement Blogger - April 30, 2013

@ 23

Aurore,

Before I forget, your post is funny. And before this day ends, it’s still April . You’re in Paris or close I forgot. You know what that means? A jazz song that describes the moment. Here’s Charlie “Bird” Parker, the father of modern jazz improvisation and one of the greatest musicians ever, playing “April in Paris”‘ I know the photos are from New York. But April in Paris is an idea; one lovely idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKzUwRZaryw

82. Jim Nightshade - April 30, 2013

fight for our future reminds me of x files movie…..

ummm yah i agree too many trailers losing focus…but the kirk n especially the spock narratives by harrison bloody brilliant….n some of the trailers are awesomely awesome….

83. Aurore - April 30, 2013

@81. Basement Blogger – April 30, 2013

“Here’s Charlie ‘Bird’ Parker…”
________

:)

I love you, Mr. Wong.

84. Keachick - April 30, 2013

I would love to see a shirtless Pine/Kirk in the promotional stills, but maybe Pine is shy whereas Alice Eve is not so much.

In Roman times, slavery was the norm therefore many of the behaviours, including rape, would be considered normal, OK, socially acceptable. The social norms and law are different now…thankfully.

Having a healthy body image comes from early on when children are young and when they are told to get dressed not because it is too hot or too cold but because they are being rude or dirty to not be dressed, as in naked. They learn very early that their natural state is not a good or safe state to be in. They learn *modesty*. Most children never see their parents naked, so they have no idea how an average human adult looks like, even ones they are related to.

Then come the fashion designers, the movie makers, the food technologies, the APA (psychotherapists, psychology this and this) all with their cash registers keen to go ka-ching, ka-ching – each group feeding off the other when joe-public are too thick to see what is going on. You see, even Basement Blogger and I are no doubt seen to have serious problems requiring the services of some bleedin’ psycho-something or other who will charge big sums by the hour…

Stop buying into the BS.

85. Gornsky - April 30, 2013

@20
“Presenting it in a fashion that’s just there to give Kirk his wonka wonka moment just reinforces the idea that harassment is okay in the future, too, that women have ‘their place’, and in the case of Trek just cheapens the whole idea that we have gotten past sexism and bigotry.”

———–

How did this whole thing turn into a debate on Kirk’s “wonka-wonka” and sexual harassment in the workplace? Kirk isn’t in any way, shape or form, harassing her. He’s an innocent bystander in this scene. I agree that it’s a random, pointless panty shot filmed primarily as a trailer inclusion, and on that basis it’s pretty poor form, but within the context of the movie and the characters it in no way represents sexual harassment.

What is it about this movie that makes so many people leap to the most offensive, negative conclusions about every tidbit? They have really managed to whip people up into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy. Release date can’t come fast enough.

86. Damian - April 30, 2013

Kirk is trying not to look. I wouldn’t be able to help myself. She is hot, and I already have a weakness for blondes.

87. Chris - April 30, 2013

In this clip here, Carol is addressed as Dr. Wallace!
How can that be?
I thought she was Carol Marcus?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcTFw8v1izY

88. Jemini - April 30, 2013

bless who made these dress uniforms

89. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 30, 2013

86. Chris

…the plot thickens… You might want to bring this clip officially to Anthony’s attention, so it can be discussed safely…

90. Chris - April 30, 2013

@ObsessiveStarTrekFan:
Unfortunately, I don’t know how to do that.
May be you can do it for me please?

91. rogerachong - April 30, 2013

There is also a new Scoty featurette on Youtube.Has new footage Scotty calls Kirk “James Tiberius PerfectHair” at the bar with Keenser. He sals “I leave the ship for one day,” to Kirk & Chekov as the ship is falling.

92. Chris - April 30, 2013

“James Tiberius PerfectHair”
I have it seen too.
I laugh out loud!

93. cpelc - April 30, 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UYUlMyhfwI

here’s the Scotty clip

94. Hubcap Dave - April 30, 2013

“James Tiberius Perfecthair” Lol! Love it!

Somebody should bring this to the attention of the Shatner’s Toupee blog…

95. dswynne - April 30, 2013

@Phil: Oh, cry me a river. You and your wife should have done one of two things. Either sue the employer, or confront the offender directly. And if your wife had any objections, simply say to her that a husband’s role is to protect the honor of his wife. And then dealt with it. But to say that nuKirk is like the guys your wife dealt with is silly, considering the fact that a) nuKirk is only 6 months out of the Academy, and, b) the point of nuKirk is that he is not the mature Kirk that we know and love. In fact, the mature Kirk had problems until the incident involving him saving the life of his commanding officer aboard the USS Farragut, when he started out. So, cut JJ and company some slack.

96. dswynne - April 30, 2013

Considering the fact that the APA allows the gay community to lobby it,in order to define what is considered to be “normal behavior”, to the point of equating same sex pairings with heterosexuality, I definitely don’t consider it to be a reputable source.

97. thorsten - April 30, 2013

Danny Crane!

98. Phil - April 30, 2013

@95. The offender was dealt with, to our satisfaction. You are missing the point, she should never have had to deal with it at all. If my wife had objections?? My role?? Do you live in Iran? This is a free society, and as such should not have to worry about these things. You need to go back and look at what I said, too – consent is key to the activities between adults. End of story.

99. Phil - April 30, 2013

@77. Don’t be dense. My point, as applied to Ms. Paltrow, should be that she appeared at an event to promote an upcoming movie. It should matter not if she showed up in a Burka, or naked. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to grind your ‘us vs the PC police’ axe, go grind it with someone else. Again, go back and look at what I said – I’ve been consistent with it, that consent is the key. I have no objections to explicit material being presented, in proper context. It’s the pointless panty shots, aimed at the male audience, that’s wrong, and a all to frequently used double standard. Using the shuttle shot, if both crew members are changing for the mission, then Pine should be in his skivvies as well. And if girl on girl necking is okay, lets see a little Kirk on Spock action, too. All things being equal, of course.

If you don’t like people observing that you objectify women, then stop objectifying women. That’s on you, and complaining about it won’t solve anything.

100. Keachick - April 30, 2013

Phil – it is just that making an observation is not necessarily fact. You label me as well. People like me and BB get pissed off…:(

Perhaps she was the only person who needed to change in order to do a mission. Kirk was already dressed appropriately for what they might encounter later. If Carol had not said anything, would he looking and talking to her constitute leering, sexual harrassment? No, it would not. It would just mean that she was comfortable with him, who was, at this point, probably more of a stranger, seeing her. Does that make them or the scene bad?

Nobody is “objectifying” the Carol/Alice Eve scene in a damaging or negative way. Most people here see the actress/character as beautiful and cherish the rare glimpse of her in the flesh. The fact that the picture may also arouse some a little sexually is also natural, but I seriously doubt that anybody here would even think to attempt to take what she herself was not prepared to give, of her own freewill, not even this nuKirk, especially not this alternate Kirk. People may fantasize about what they may like, but that is not the same as acting on it, especially if that means causing harm.

Acts of violence involve true objectification of their victims, otherwise the crime could not be committed. Sexual assault and rape victims included. It is the desire to hurt, to damage, even kill, on the part of the assailant that renders their victims mere objects to be used, abused, annihilated…

True objectification is about assuming/presuming power that is not yours. It is not about sexual desire or acknowledging that a person looks good in the flesh.

101. Bird of Prey - April 30, 2013

Ah, yes, Kirk’s legendary “reputation”! :-D

Also, these dudes seem to hang out in bars an awful lot. (Not that I am complaining…)

102. Basement Blogger - April 30, 2013

@ 99

Phil says, “If you don’t like people observing that you objectify women, then stop objectifying women. That’s on you, and complaining about it won’t solve anything.”

You really don’t get it. So let me go over this again. You have not offered your qualifications as a psychologist. I’ve noted on this website that Alice Eve is beautiful and i”ve defended free speech or peep shows as you liked to call it. (@ 64) . But you leaped to the conclusion that I objectify women, okay let’s just use the term that you want to use which is to call me “sexist.” You don’t know me. You have not psychoanalyzed me. You don’t know my views on women. And frankly before you judge people with you r fundamentalist fervor, you should know that person. . You would find out that i’m a political liberal that at times is not lockstep with political correctness.. You should know that from chat.

About “complaining” , I’m not the one who’s attacking the speaker, you are. And you should be fair. If I am a sexist or someone who objectifies women then everyone who liked Alice Eve in her bikini should fall under your definition.

Phil, here’s the challenge. Call everyone on this thread and every Trekker who enjoys the sexuality of a woman in Star Trek , a sexist or that they objectify women.

103. Trekkiegal63 - April 30, 2013

#102 Basement Blogger:

Nice fallacy of logic usage. Well, points for effort, anyway.

Argumentum ad populum, otherwise known as the bandwagon argument.

… just because a truly disturbing number of men have supported you on this thread, doesn’t make objectification, or you, right. Not even close.

In other words… epic fail!

It would be the equivelent of me copying and pasting your statements to Jezebel and seeing what the reaction there would be. (I would love to see that, actually).

104. Basement Blogger - April 30, 2013

@ 102, 78, 80

Trekkiegal63 says,

“… just because a truly disturbing number of men have supported you on this thread, doesn’t make objectification, or you, right.”

You might try reading my post at 101 again. If you don’t understand let me explain it for you. Let me put this in caps, so you can read it. I NEVER SAID OBJECTIFICATION WAS RIGHT.

The point is this. You and Phil must be fair. You must attack every Trekker who finds Alice Eve in her bikini as beautiful and for that matter find that any woman in Star Trek to be sexy as being objectifiers of women. That’s because there a “disturbing number of men” as you put it, find some of the sexy scenes of women to be beautiful. I mean you have been attacking me constantly. Why not go after the heterosexual Trekker community who find some of the women Star Trek to be sexy?

I’m just one man, not the devil This is your opportunity to indoctrinate the men of Star Trek to not look at naughty pictures. .

@ 78

Nero and Caligula were evil men. They believed in deviant and perverse sexual practices. My point way back was that images of Venus did not bring down Western civilization. You brought up these two men. Yeah, I get it. You’re making the point that objectification led them to do their despicable acts. Those men were evil to begin with. But I would again refer to Unwanted and Michael Towns expertise on the fall of the Roman empire. (47, 48)

I don’t see how you tie Nero and Caligula to Alice Eve in her bikini.

@ 80

On the Gywneth Paltrow, “humiliated” for wearing that dress at Iron Man premiere, you quote her from Ellen. I was going to say “touche” but …. you didn’t link that actual video. I wonder why. Oh, yeah, it’s context. Let’s look at the tape to see if she was breaking down “humiliated.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeouepHxNr8

Look at the fifty second mark. She’s laughing about it as she uses the term “humiliated.” And then that evil sexist Ellen Degeneres wants to know more about Paltrow’s use of a razor. :-)

Regardless, you are right if some man made here wear that dress. Let’s get that sexist SOB. Of course, I think she knew what she was getting into and wanted to make a splash by getting men and women to talk about her legs etc. to drum up publicity for Iron Man.

Hold on. Here’s a video where the evil DeGeneres has scantily clad me dance with the innocent Paltrow. It’s on daytime television!!!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/gwyneth-paltrow-dances-topless-hunks-1854431

So, does your rage extend to images of scantily clad men?

105. Phil - April 30, 2013

@102. Well, again, you seem to think that all you need to do is explain why your objectification of women is in reality, protecting free speech, or some heroic stand against political correctness, and that makes it okay?

So, I need a degree in psychiatry to make a conclusion about an observed activity? So, if I come across someone in a white robe, burning a cross on someone’s lawn, concluding they are a racist is a leap to judgment? You have spilled a lot of digital ink defending objectification, so how can you defend an activity you profess to not support?…Well, you might be an attorney, I suppose.

You protest too much. There is no challenge to be had here, it’s only you who are equating that a polite comment on ones appearance is also objectification. If you wish to make that argument, then support it. Hollywood should abandon the double standard, to achieve the equality you profess to seek – if full frontal is okay for the girls, it should be for the guys, too. If you are as objective as you claim to be, this isn’t a problem, is it?

This has gone on much longer then it should have – neither of us are likely to change our minds on this, so it’s time to walk away….

106. Phil - April 30, 2013

Change of subject, with apologies to Mr. Orci…Everything that was wrong with Transformers in less then six minutes. Seems Michael Bay likes the lens flares, too. Yeah, Bob, you made billions on this – good job!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jmKo7US0Kw

107. Trekkiegal63 - April 30, 2013

#104 Basement Blogger:

A spade is a spade, Basement Blogger. Don’t think I don’t realize exactly what you were doing with your post #102.

You said this:

Call everyone on this thread and every Trekker who enjoys the sexuality of a woman in Star Trek , a sexist or that they objectify women.

This takes the argument off of you on to everyone on this thread who has responded thus far, most of them who have supported your support of objectification.

Point: you’re the one who keeps trying to defend it, so appealing to the masses is an attempt to get others back involved.

You were trying to organize a dog-pile. I called you out on it. And will do so again if you try it again.

As for Nero and Calligula, it comes down to perceptions of women. With both men it was a cumulative effect, they didn’t start their reigns horrible, but it went downhill rather fast, like a slippery slope. Once one behavior ceases to produce a necessary rush, a more extreme behavior is then adapted to produce a similar rush to the first and so on and so on.

But the bottom line?

Objectification is harmful to women, I have linked a paper, which I notice you still haven’t read, btw, which details exactly how that is. I could link a dozen more, done by universities, individually, all with the same result. If it weren’t for Anthony’s warning about the link filter I’d do exactly that. But here’s a suggestion for you, try googling ‘harmful effects of sexual objectification on women’ and see what comes back. And actually read the articles.

BTW: I laugh at past embarrassments all the time. I trip and fall on my butt, I’ll laugh about it later. Ever heard the phrase better to laugh with than be laughed at? Her laughing at a retelling of an event doesn’t negate the use of the descriptor ‘humiliated’.

And, btw, women are objectified way more than men. Have a stat for that, too.

From seejane.org:

•Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males.

But I already know how you are going to respond to the post, as you seem to have a script you use. You’re going to say “but I didn’t get to call you names” then try to distance yourself from the word ‘objectification’ (“but I never said I support objectifcation!”) all the while espousing arguments that do exactly that, only without using the word directly so you can get a pass on technicalities. Then you’re going to tell me, as you did on that other thread, that we’re not allowed to get political on this site, even though you’ve done exactly that yourself. If all that fails, then I’m being ‘radical’ with my beliefs. Or any other use of dismissive language you can think of to make me doubt myself (which will never, ever happen, btw, so you’d be wasting energy).

In other words, you definitely have a pattern to your debates. And the fact that I’ve already learned it after just three conversations with you? That should tell you something.

108. Basement Blogger - April 30, 2013

@ 105

Phil,

” Hollywood should abandon the double standard, to achieve the equality you profess to seek – if full frontal is okay for the girls, it should be for the guys, too. If you are as objective as you claim to be, this isn’t a problem, is it?”

First, before I answer your question let me clarify the word “girls” in your question. Nudity for girls is never right. We’re talking about women not girls.

Here’s your answer. There is nothing wrong with male nudity in film. I’m not sure where the full frontal stuff iin your quote came from, but that doesn’t bother me. When we’re talking about art and the performing arts if it makes sense then I’m okay with male nudity. See Michaelangelo’s David, Movies. Quills (2000) , Bertolucci’s The Dreamers (2003) Etc. I want to name comedies here but I’m being serious for the moment.

109. Basement Blogger - April 30, 2013

@ 107

Trekkiegal63 says this,

“Point: you’re the one who keeps trying to defend it, so appealing to the masses is an attempt to get others back involved.”

Nope. That’s not my point. My point is that you say I objectify women by saying that image of Alice Eve is beautiful. Okay, I’m one guy. This is your chance to indoctrinate heterosexual male Trekkers. They’re just as guilty of maleness as I am. This is your chance. Who knows when you address male Trekkers? Today, you change male Trekkers, tomorrow you make the world safe from naughty pictures.

110. Phil - April 30, 2013

@108. I’m done. Not debating strawman arguments. Lens flares in Transformers, anyone?

111. Trekkiegal63 - April 30, 2013

You’re full quote was this:

Alice Eve is a beautiful woman. There I said it, Like Kirk, I looked. Sorry for my maleness. It’s a miracle that all those ancient naked depictions of Venus, to the nude paintings of French painter Degas to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue didn’t bring down Western civilization.

… I stand by everything I said in post #107.

112. Trekkiegal63 - April 30, 2013

*Your

113. Keachick - April 30, 2013

The thing is – seeing Alice Eve/Carol in her underwear is not a naughty picture. Both men and women can and do remark about how nice she looks, as in she has a lovely figure and face. When is it suddenly bad to compliment someone you find physically beautiful or charming? Why has it become a bad thing for someone to express liking, curiosity or concern about a person they see in movies and/or read about on the internet or magazine?

The reality is that serious violent/sexual objectification of women, in particular, has gone on for millennia and still goes on today in much of Africa, Asia, India and the middle east. People having problems with body image and eating disorders are also nothing new and they were occurring long before films, television, media came into existence. Hero/idol worship have always been part of the human existence as well. If any of these behaviours are taken to their extreme, tragic outcomes can be the result – whether it be 1,000 years ago or today.

Basement Blogger and others are no more objectifying Alice Eve by saying that she is beautiful and pleased to see her wearing very little anymore than I objectify Chris Pine by commenting that I find him to be a lovely looking man, whether he is fully dressed or is only seen wearing underwear. We have the right/the need to express our delight, our admiration for what we see as handsome, lovely, beautiful, desirable, sweet…

What’s more, if the film makers choose to put a scene showing Carol in her undies and hopefully Kirk, or any other male or female character, wearing little or nothing, that is their right as well. The human body is not naughty or bad – we are what we are.

If some people choose to be odious, ignorant SODS/SOBS and use what a film maker like JJ Abrams might choose to put in a movie (a guy married with three children) as an excuse to behave in a nasty destructive manner towards another person, others, then the onus is on that person, not on JJ Abrams, Paramount or anybody else.

You know – I am really sick of people like trekkiegal who make their business to negatively label other people’s behaviour or what they may write on a site like this because they either don’t fully understand it or have their own personal agenda to grind away on here. You might repeat your so-called reasoning here, but there is more to it than what you are prepared to admit to…

How about – jealousy, envy – women like Alice Eve have something you no longer have (perhaps never had) eg a figure that is generally considered universally attractive and because you don’t have it, you resent the fact that someone who does have it is seen by others who express their inherent appreciation. That is, if you can’t have, then nobody can. I suspect very similar could be applied to males who may share your attitude, ie if I can’t have/see, then nobody can.

It seems that the APA etc seems to encourage this kind of attitude…:((

114. Trekkiegal63 - April 30, 2013

Anthony has warned both of us, twice. Yet you continue to insult and take pot shots at every oppertunity, this time for a debate not even addressed to you. There is a word for it. Harassment. Next time? I am reporting you.

115. Trekkiegal63 - April 30, 2013

*opportunity

116. Dswynne - April 30, 2013

Ultimately, what is defined as ‘objectifying’ is in the eye of the beholder…and generational, too.

117. Keachick - April 30, 2013

You threw the first insults, trekkiegal. I am simply replying in kind. In fact, you have been doing this kind of veiled insults against people you don’t understand since day one. I should have reported you long ago. So now you know what it feels like to have similar done back to you. Pot shots? No, just replying to the contents of your posts.

No, no debate is necessarily addressed to anyone but people read, think and maybe reply.

You just don’t get it, do you?

Given how this site operates, I’ll no doubt be the one called out/banned, while people like you get free passes to badger people like me and Basement Blogger and consistently misinterpret what we are also trying to say. You and Phil were rude and bloody condescending towards me on another thread and then when I replied, Anthony deleted my post.

Thanks, Anthony…:(

118. Hubcap Dave - April 30, 2013

I am reminded of a comic strip I read in Mad Magazine when I was a kid. A bunch of teenagers were having a pool party at this one girl’s house. Another girl asks to borrow a swim suit. She comes down to the pool and tells the first girl that the bikini she let her borrow is really cool. The first girl says, that’s not a bikini, that’s my underwear. The first girl tries to cover herself up with her arms and runs screaming into the house.

Reason this comes to mind is that the bra and panties Alice Eve finds herself in doesn’t really look like more than a somewhat modest bikini (at least by today’s standards).

As to the “objectifying women” argument, I have a question: To the people who are arguing the “pro” side, do you consider any time that a man eyes another woman’s form that it is an act of “objectifying women”?

119. Trekkiegal63 - April 30, 2013

#117 Hubcap Dave:

No, the objectifying in the case of Alice Eve was done by the marketers for this movie by placing her semi-nude shot in the trailer as a means to sell the film.

And I’d like to remind everybody, that when the first trailer which used the shot came out? A rather large chunk of the movie sites? They said the exact same thing I’ve been saying…

truthoncinema.com:

I was wondering when the obligatory objectified woman would appear in the hype for the new Star Trek film. You just can’t get people to see a movie nowadays unless someone is in their underwear in the previews. Fortunately for us, there’s also some pretty cool shots and a lot more to learn about our heroes and their foe this go around.

From i-flicks.net:

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

(image of Alice Eve here)

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

moviesblog.mtv.com:

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.

bestforfilm.com:

Also, as Empire definitely noticed, Alice Eve gets her kit off! We were planning an image along the lines of the one above which highlighted how radically gratuitous her underwear shot was, when we noticed something…

(image of Alice Eve here)

JJ Abrams knows what he’s doing – Alice Eve’s tits weren’t just gratuitous interstellar sexism, they were gratuitous interstellar sexist DISTRACTIONS! We followed the link, and it took us to this beautiful new poster.

ifanboy.com:

This 700th iteration of the Star Trek Into Darkness trailer includes a number of sequences with which we’re well familiar, but there’s also heaps of new. In many ways, it’s the most revealing cut yet, not just because Alice Eve turns up in her skivvies for some odd reason.

120. Anthony Pascale - April 30, 2013

Trekkiegal Keachick you both need to calm down. This is your last dustup. And you all and others are going round and round on this topic. it is what it is. you have said your says and we all get it. No one is changing their minds. The movie isn’t going to be re-edited to suit whatever it is anyone finds offensive etc.

Move on or move out

121. pock speared - May 1, 2013

@120
I love it when anthony takes control of the ship… it’s so kirk-like.

122. cd - May 1, 2013

67 – actually the greasy/shiny is one of the lesser annoying things I have seen so far. And you are right, that is one of the more accurate to TOS elements.
>;>}

123. Keachick - May 1, 2013

Spock is part vulcan which means that he feels the cold a lot more than humans like Kirk. Therefore, when active, Spock will not perspire as much as Kirk and others. This aspect of Spock’s physiology has been highlighted in TOS TV and films.

Kirk seems overdressed in what has been shown of this film. That could account for much of the sweat and that would not be just Kirk’s either.

124. Calastir - May 1, 2013

Absolutely hate these North Korea / Nazi uniforms.

If people actually start wearing these at conventions, I’m out.

125. Phil - May 1, 2013

@100. There are times when I think you get it, and you just need the nudge to put the pieces together. Consent and context is the key. Both parties have to retain the ability to say ‘no’ at any time and walk away, with no harm done. There have been enough cases in the international news the last few weeks that suggest this is still a substantial problem for women.

I’ve agreed that this scene is not in context – if the relationship is established in prior scenes then this could be nothing more then some cheeky fun..no pun intended. Given the material that’s presented, a subordinate is presumed to be unable to consent, hence, objectification. Given presumed knowledge of Kirks attitude toward women, and that in a professional setting in the future, we are supposed to be past sexism, can you understand how that scene could be viewed negatively? I’m not asking if you agree with that assessment, just that you understand how it was arrived at?

Bottom line is the scene is open to interpretation, and we will know in a couple of weeks, one way or another.

Cheers….

126. Keachick - May 1, 2013

“a subordinate is presumed to be unable to consent”?

Why would that be assumed/presumed? Carol Marcus is only Kirk’s subordinate when it comes to her position within the chain of command in her work.

She is Kirk’s equal in everything else, especially when it comes to giving consent or otherwise to any kind of sexual liaison. I would also think that this would be apparent and not even open for debate for Kirk and Marcus. In the short scene, it seems that Carol is there (for whatever reason) and Kirk happens upon her in her underwear and looks – more surprised than anything. When she asks him to turn away, he does so immediately.

127. Phil - May 1, 2013

@126. Christ, does everything need to be defined to the nth degree for you? I give you two situations, both with the latitude to accept different rules for fraternization, recognition of a command structure, and you sit there and bitch and nit-pick away at one tiny portion of it.

Carol Marcus is subordinate to Kirk, period. Both have their skills, but until she holds equal rank in the command structure, she is beneath him, hence, subordinate. What they do in their spare time is their business…

128. Red Dead Ryan - May 1, 2013

I may be mistaken, but I understand that many countries’ militaries don’t allow intimate relationships between a commanding officer and his/her subordinate.

These rules are in place to prevent the perception of favoritism/nepotism, as well as abuse of power, and any compromising of classifed and sensitive information.

But it seems to be different in “Star Trek”. We saw Chakotay and Seven Of Nine have a relationship. Captain Picard and Neela Daren had a brief romance, but they broke it off because they both agreed that their jobs got in the way.

So in “Star Trek”, these types of relationships are allowed, on the basis that good judgement is used. Also, humans are depicted as being much more mature in the 23rd and 24th centuries.

129. Phil - May 1, 2013

@128 You understand that correctly, most don’t . In the private sector, managers dating their employees is also not encouraged, and instructors dating their students is frowned upon, too. The easiest way to avoid the problems that arise from these relationships is to prohibit the activity that creates them to begin with.

Especially on extended missions, I can understand that the rules would be a bit more relaxed. I suspect that Starfleet would train extensively on keeping private what needs to be private, to avoid compromising the mission. That should not be an unreasonable expectation in a more mature humanity that’s past the sexism and bigotry of the 20th century.

Can’t help but notice that as more foreign reviews come in, Ms. Eve’s panty shot is raising a few eyebrows as well. And typically, these folks are a little more acceptable of showing off some skin then their American counterparts. We shall see….

130. Keachick - May 1, 2013

“Given the material that’s presented, a subordinate is presumed to be unable to consent, hence, objectification. Given presumed knowledge of Kirks attitude toward women,”

This is what you wrote. I answered it. I was not nitpicking.

Whether or not they were on duty, Carol Marcus had a right to ask for privacy while dressing and Kirk was duty and morally bound to give her that, which he did.

What is Kirk’s attitude toward women? I am being a bit rhetorical here.
I think it is, as he said himself, “You can handle me. That’s an invitation”. He did not lay a hand on Uhura when he gave her HIS PERMISSION and invitation. It is up to that individual either to accept or not accept any invitations. Kirk clearly “put the ball squarely in her court”. I suspect this is his normal way of approaching women and relationships.

131. Phil - May 1, 2013

I know what I wrote. In your usually dismissive fashion because I didn’t define subordinate to your liking you nit picked away. I forgot, there is never discussion with you, just you explaining why everyone else is always wrong – ironic, because all I asked of you was to just give some consideration as to how someone else could arrive at a different conclusion, and in your arrogant, self centered fantasy here you could not even do that. Well, if there was a way that this could have been made more pointless, you figured out how to do it.

Back to the tech thread. At least there is a point to be made over there….

132. Keachick - May 2, 2013

Phil – you are an ass. Stop being so critical of me. The only one being arrogant here is you and I am sick of your attacks and snide remarks. Go find another punching bag.

I discussed the topic, but you are the one who keeps making it personal because I don’t agree with you. Carol Marcus is Kirk’s colleague and subordinate, not his slave. There is a difference. Clearly, some people, especially some men, do not have that comprehension. However Kirk does. He knows it. She knows it.

133. Phil - May 2, 2013

@132. Whatever. Just more pointless name calling on your part…

134. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 2, 2013

@132. Keachick

I’ve watched this for a while and have no desire to get embroiled in this, but I feel I must comment.

While Kirk is a fundamentally decent person, not everyone is. As I understand it, any fraternisation rules that may exist in the 23rd century, and that do exist in the 21st century, are there to prevent (in theory at least, and amongst other things) abuse of power by the superior officer. The relationship between a superior and a subordinate in a military (or quasi-military) organisation is inherently unequal.

It is for the same reason that it is unethical/illegal for a medical professional to form an intimate relationship with their patient; illegal for a teacher to form an intimate relationship with their student – even if the student is over the age of consent; why there is an ‘age of consent’ in the first place.

In practise the rules don’t always prevent harm.

Here is an excerpt from an article on sexual abuse in the US military, published on March 15 2013: “The three former service members – the first military sexual assault victims to testify before a Senate panel – described a pervasive culture of harassment and danger in which victims had little or no redress. “

The link to the full article is here: http://www.theage.com.au/world/abuse-victims-tell-senate-of-rape-and-ridicule-20130314-2g3je.html#ixzz2S73tZjIH

I am not picking on the US. This was the first article I came across in my quick search. I am aware that Australia has recently had an investigation into sexual abuse in the military and that a Royal Commission may yet come out of it. Australia also currently has a Royal Commission into institutional sexual abuse of children underway.

The issues are real, and the protocols to prevent them seem to fail far too often.

I would hope that the scene in the movie makes it clear that it is NOT OK to oggle your undressed subordinate in a work situation. I am hoping for something along the lines of either:-

Marcus saying ‘What do you think you’re looking at? What are you – 12? ‘ Followed by an apology from Kirk for staring.
or
Marcus saying ‘Don’t just stand there gawking! You’ve got to strip too, you know.’

135. Keachick - May 2, 2013

Critical, negative adjectives used to describe what I wrote and name-calling

Let’s see what you have said of me “dismissive fashion” “nit pick” “arrogant”, “self centered fantasy”, “pointless”

Meaning of subordinate -

“Adjective – Lower in rank or position: “his subordinate officers”.
Noun – A person under the authority or control of another within an organization.
Verb – Treat or regard as of lesser importance than something else.”

In terms of Star Trek and Starfleet – only the adjective and noun would apply. In terms of Kirk’s character, especially if you take into account the prime Kirk, he did not abuse his senior status. In fact, in the TOS episode, The Enemy Within, he was shocked that his other darker side had attempted to rape Yeoman Rand. I do not see that this nuKirk is fundamentally so different from prime Kirk.

One of the unsettling aspects of that 1960′s episode was the fact that Yeoman Rand thought that it was OK for Kirk to intrude into her personal space (I think he entered her quarters) simply because he was the captain and her superior officer. That was the 1960′s attitude on how authority could be used and abused.

I cannot see Carol Marcus or Lt Uhura standing for that – not at all.

You seem to have (next to) no respect for this alternate younger Kirk, despite the fact that if he was someone given to violently/sexually abusing others, Starfleet would not allow him entry into the Academy, let alone hold any rank. I do not know whether it is because I like Kirk (along with the actor who plays him) or what, but your attitude seems particularly harsh. Luckily, Pike knows him better than anyone and still believes in him, even when he does screw up…

Even though, these are all fictional characters, their makeup and behaviours are based on aspects of human behaviour and traits. How we respond to fictional characters, especially if they are written well, often reflects how we might behave to similar kinds of people in real life.

136. Keachick - May 2, 2013

In the trailer, it shows Kirk looking at her. He seems taken aback. Carol says quite forcefully “Turn around” and Kirk does so, saying “Right, right”. He closes his eyes.

137. Aurore - May 2, 2013

“In the trailer, it shows Kirk looking at her. He seems taken aback. Carol says quite forcefully “Turn around” and Kirk does so, saying “Right, right”. He closes his eyes.”
__________

Aaaah yes.

Before this TV spot, looking at her lips, I would have sworn that she was saying forcefully “What ?!” as in “What are you looking at? Haven’t you seen a woman , before ?!”…But, we do hear her say “Turn around”.

So now, I know what she was saying “all along”, I guess .

:)

138. Aurore - May 2, 2013

“…I would have sworn that she was saying forcefully ‘What ?!’”
_____

Or something like that…

:)

139. Phil - May 2, 2013

@134. My son is in the Navy, and I’m familiar with your referenced material. You are also correct, it’s not just a problem within the US service, most western cultures are still struggling with how to get past this attitude. (Won’t even get into cultures where the status of women isn’t much more then property) It could easily take a generation to accomplish, from the abolishment of physical slavery in the 1860′s, it took 100 years for minority communities to actually exert their status as equals, and these communities still struggle with the aftermath of that oppression.

Yeah, I have a differing perspective. In the trailer, Carol should never have been subjected to his leering in the first place, not that she had to tell him to stop (and enough review have come in now describing this as leering, so we need to stop pretending this was innocent flirting). At least in theory that standard would not be accepted today – it’s not unreasonable to expect this in the future as well. One has the right to be secure in their person and property.

Okay, it’s a movie, they needed a quick way for Kirk to notice Carol, and the panty shot does that, in addition to giving the younger guys in the audience something to drool over. I get that. In reality, if a guy walked up to a girl in a bar, introduced himself and asked if he could stare at her rack for an hour, she’d be perfectly justified in asking the bouncer to break his jaw. That’s the problem with the scene, it sets the wrong standard for appropriate behavior. It says I can be a boor and still get the girl, when in reality the consequences are usually bad. The bouncer breaks his jaw, or the guy stealing my car gets shot. But hey, what the hell do I know…

140. Phil - May 2, 2013

oops…left out a part.

One has the right to be secure in their person and property. My expectation is that my car should not be stolen, not that I have to explain to the person stealing my car that he needs to stop. Even if he is confronted, just stopping isn’t sufficient, there are consequences to that action, either from law enforcement or from me, if force is required to stop the aggression.

141. Winifred - May 2, 2013

Hi! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a collection of volunteers
and starting a new project in a community
in the same niche. Your blog provided us beneficial information to work on.
You have done a extraordinary job!

142. Keachick - May 2, 2013

OK – it was a very quick take of a scene, but Kirk did not leer at her. He looked more taken aback by her presence. I heard her say “Turn around”…

You are seeing something in that scene that I have not honestly seen.

I guess, once we see the film in its entirety, the context will become apparent.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.