Sexy or Sexist? How Star Trek Into Darkness turned Heroines into Damsels in Distress | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Sexy or Sexist? How Star Trek Into Darkness turned Heroines into Damsels in Distress May 23, 2013

by Kayla Iacovino , Filed under: Editorial,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

As per usual Star Trek Into Darkness has sparked much fan discussion and even disagreement, but but if there’s one thing we can all agree on: we love seeing Alice Eve in her undies! True, of course, until anyone bothered to ask a woman. There has always been scantily clad females throughout Trek history – it’s a part of what makes Kirk so Kirk – so, why should this one scene be causing such a stir? Why have female fans responded so strongly in this case? Read my analysis below, but beware of SPOILERS.

[WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD]

Gratuitous Underwear: How did we get here?

As if you need me to, I’ll set the scene. Kirk accompanies Carol Marcus to a shuttlecraft to discuss sending her to a nearby planetoid to try and diffuse some of these mysterious photon torpedoes aboard the Enterprise. She’s the logical choice since, as we learned in her introductory scene, she holds an advanced degree with a specialty in weaponry. Great, nothing out of the ordinary here, I’ll just go ahead and OH! You’re in your underwear! That’s just great.

But, let’s back up a second. Why exactly is she in her underwear? She tells Kirk to turn around, doesn’t mention why (were we expecting here to require a change of wardrobe?) and then acts coy when Kirk sneaks a peak at her half-dressed body. The scene was flat out gratuitous. It had no point. There was no reason for her to change clothes. There was no reason for her to change in front of Kirk. There was no reason for her to change in a shuttlecraft with the back door hanging wide open. The writers threw the scene in for pure, testosterone-driven shock value. (Side note: lucky she was wearing her brand new Victoria Secret push-up bra. I’m sure that’s real comfortable under her uniform, especially in a combat situation)

Think I’m being harsh? Even Damon Lindelof himself, co-writer of Into Darkness, publicly apologized for the scene saying over a few tweets:

“I copped to the fact that we should have done a better job of not being gratuitous in our representation of a barely clothed actress. We also had Kirk shirtless in underpants in both movies. Do not want to make light of something that some construe has mysogenistic [sic]. What I’m saying is I hear you, I take full responsibility, and will be more mindful in the future.”

Damsels in Distress: Where are all the women?

But, we’ve seen our fair share of half-naked women (and men!) throughout Star Trek. Even in Star Trek (2009) we had one hot Orion woman in her undies as well as Uhura changing for us all to see. Why was it okay then but not now? Two reasons: 1. Those scenes were built into the story well (i.e. it was not gratuitous), and 2. Those scenes did not detract from their characters.


She undressed with purpose!

The Orion girl was undressed because, well, she was getting naughty with Kirk! As for Uhura, she was changing because she was in her personal quarters and unaware that some “mouth breather” was looking on from underneath her roommate’s bed. Those moments had purpose; they made sense. Randomly disrobing in the back of a shuttle craft? Gratuitous.

Secondly, and most importantly, the Marcus underwear scene detracted from the only truly strong female role in the entire film. Let’s start from the beginning. A terrorist attack has occurred (after a MAN bribed the FATHER of a dying child), and all of Starfleet’s finest are gathered together at a round table to talk options. Who do we see? A bunch of old white human males (with maybe a token woman thrown in). Cut to our introduction to Carol Wallace (aka Carol Marcus). She’s cute, she’s sexy, she’s got great hair! But, she’s also brilliant and trained in advanced weaponry — a force even Mr. Spock is threatened by. Meanwhile, Uhura does little more than follow Spock around moaning about him having a death wish. For the girls, it’s Carol who is going to represent us as a strong, smart, beautiful, independent woman! Aaaaand, then she threw her cloths at Kirk the first chance she got. Role model no more. (It’s worth noting that Felicia Day, famed nerd girl/actress, has posted similar thoughts about this on her blog.)

Uhura, who many would point to as a shining symbol of strong African-American women, isn’t without her girl power moments in the film. On Kronos, Uhura really gets to strut her stuff as the only person able to speak Klingon and decides to go up against a whole swarm of them (according to Mr. Barris, 12 Klingons constitutes a swarm). This for her is a moment of true courage. Much of that courageous character is lost, however, throughout the rest of the film as Uhura is given the primary role of humanizing Spock.


Uhura has a moment of courage and strength

I am by no means a feminist. As a woman, I’m all for the equal treatment of women. But, I take a pragmatic approach. I’ll let you guys in on a little secret: women sometimes like looking at other women naked. Women, particularly those starring in blockbuster Hollywood films, are beautiful things, and us girls like looking at beautiful things (I’m convinced it’s the same for men looking at men, but I can’t get my boyfriend to admit it). But, even more than that, we like looking at a beautiful, strong, independent women. We like watching someone who we want to be like, and we like being told that you can be smart and beautiful. You can also be strong and beautiful, evil and beautiful, gay and beautiful. After the underwear scene, Carol was just dumb and beautiful.


Don’t look or my cloths might fall off

What about the men in STID? Should we be outraged?
“What about the men!” you say? I’ve heard the argument that we saw men in tight diving suits and a shirtless Kirk, so the Marcus underwear scene should be no different. I couldn’t disagree more. First of all, those diving suits? Hardly flattering for many of the men in question (I was seriously surprised that the costume department didn’t fix that one — wetsuits tend to make one look pudgy). And besides, we saw both genders in those dive suits. Secondly, and I’ll say this again, those scenes had purpose and didn’t detract from the character like the Marcus scene did.


So, tell me: where are all the women in Star Trek Into Darkness? Are they strong, independent role models for our daughters, or are they just dumb blondes?

POLL: What say you?

Was Star Trek Into Darkness sexist/misogynistic?

  • Yes (23%)
  • Maybe a little bit (25%)
  • No (52%)

Total Votes: 3,411

Loading ... Loading ...

 

 

Follow me on Twitter: @kaylai.


Comments

1. James - May 23, 2013

I thought the scene played fine – not sexist at all. None of the girls that I saw the movie with had a problem with it either…just sayin’

2. sterj - May 23, 2013

Good article, but I think you meant to write “clothes” (short for clothing) instead of “cloths” (which could mean fabric or a pile of rags).

3. Moputo Jones - May 23, 2013

You see her in her underwear for a grand total of about 2 second. Yes, if by gratuitous you mean unnecessary, then it was gratuitous. Hardly any cause for all of the hullabaloo, though.

4. Prettyconfused - May 23, 2013

Agreed, the scene made no sense and I’m amazed it made it into the final edit. Where did McCoy get changed? There was plenty of time for him to get changed and wander over to the shuttle so why Carol was stripping down immediately I have no idea…

Regarding the Starfleet Command meeting, yep, there was maybe one woman in there, which is crazy enough, no non-humans either, which also seems pretty bad. Even in the future it’s old white men in charge with no diversity…

I’m actually glad the woman in the command meeting was mostly edited out of the final cut as in the trailers we saw her get shot, start screaming, and Kirk has to save her… Ludicrous!

One other thought, I’d love to see a woman in a Starfleet uniform with pants rather than a skirt next movie.

Not female, but I still found that all really anachronistic and a little uncomfortable.

Little nitpick though: clothes not cloths. Unless that’s what you meant?

5. Danya - May 23, 2013

Thank you for writing this, Kayla. Completely agree with most of your points, to be sure, the Carol underwear scene was absolutely inexcusable, and the fact that Abrams has half-defended it by claiming Kirk shirtless (while having a threesome) is the equivalent is totally asinine.

I’m almost even more bothered by the Starfleet roundtable scene. I looked back at Anthony’s screenshot of it from one of the trailers. Out of 20 people, 5 are definitely women, possibly 7. It’s better than none obviously but I consider it so disappointing, obvious, and really, a missed opportunity.

We know the majority of Enterprise crewmembers the film chooses to focus on are male. This is largely a function of it reflecting TOS (which was made in a less gender-equal age), which is somewhat troubling, but I do understand why there is a desire to focus on the same characters that we love from the show.

So: WHY not counteract that with making the roundtable scene, say, 12 or 13 women out of 20? It would have been a strong statement about a gender-equal hopeful future. I would really like to ask anyone who was involved in the film’s production — boborci, are you there? why the choice was made to have clearly more men than women at that roundtable. Because it reflects the way such an equivalent meeting probably would be in today’s world? Power inequity when it comes to gender is a problem we are still trying to deal with today and I would like to think the people who make Star Trek believe the future will be better about it. They had a pretty easy opportunity to make a simple statement about that and they totally blew it.

Just one question Kayla — why do you say you’re “by no means a feminist”? As I understand it, if you believe in men and women being treated equally, you’re a feminist.

Again, thank you so much for writing this piece, and thank you Anthony for publishing it.

6. Jim - May 23, 2013

Well FIRST: i dont think so!
Second: i am male:)

7. Jim - May 23, 2013

Dammit

8. weerd1 - May 23, 2013

Wait, strong female characters who also show a bit more skin than might be appropriate? Sounds like Star Trek.

9. NX01 - May 23, 2013

I forgot about the scene until now. I think Alice Eve Aka “Kirk’s baby moma” is Hot. I like seeing her that way , I am a healthy straight male.

That being said, I honest forgot about the scene in the context of the story.
To be fair the scene does not seem to have any relation to the story.
There was no logical reason for her to change in front of Kirk in the shuttle craft. I played Star Trek the game there is a room in the shuttle bay where you can change into space suits.

10. Philip - May 23, 2013

Hmm, it’s not as if she (Carol Marcus) didn’t risk her life diffusing a torpedo bomb from going off, while displaying more smarts and heroics than the male in the scene, McCoy… Convenient enough to leave that out of your article…

Additionally, any human being has the right to scream when their friend, let alone father’s head is CRUSHED by someone else’s bare hands in front of them!!! Add some real context and maybe your article will be taken seriously, versus as a misleading one.

Garbage journalism.

11. Unbel1ever - May 23, 2013

It’s probably the most pointless scene of the movie and it IS sexist. There’s no reason for her to undress in a shuttle in front of Kirk and not tell him that she does so. Naturally, he looks. Apart from there being no reason for her undressing, this makes her look stupid because she has to know he’d look. So in consequence: Does she like him and wants to come onto him because of his “reputation”? If that were the case, you’d think as a strong woman she’d make that more plain and also in different circumstances – NOT while solving a potential crisis. That would make her unprofessional.

The character is underwritten in general, but this basically says: Here’s a stupid blonde. She’s here to be looked at and has no other purpose. Great thing to aspire to for women, especially young women……

12. Spock Jr. - May 23, 2013

And TrekMovie has become Daily Mail! Oh, the outrage! The scandal! And the scene is so shocking, here – here is the picture again! The scene isn’t even about her – it’s about Kirk being a gormless idiot, as any man would be, when he is supposed to be focused on something far more important, like the mysterious Harrison. I thought Alice Eve was amazing, sweet, intelligent and beautiful – yes, can I say that, without causing offence?! A fave moment of mine is when she begs her father to stop the attack on the Enterprise only to be beamed, without her consent, away from the people she is trying to protect. This article belittles her, and her character, more than that, now infamous, shot! If the shot of BC in the shower had been in the movie, women would be going crazy for it – and we’d all be jealous as hell, but we wouldn’t attack Star Trek for being sexist! … I want you all off my ship! Now.

13. Danpaine - May 23, 2013

You girls can go ahead and run with this. Have fun.

I agree, #10. This is a non-issue. So sick and tired of reading about
‘diversity.’ Yawn.

14. DP McGuire - May 23, 2013

She was a great character and I loved having her in the movie. Oh and by the way she is eye candy for sure.

15. sean - May 23, 2013

The scene would have played differently if we’d seen them both get into their skivvies. I think in that case no one would have had a problem. But as it stands, it’s a pretty stupid scene. Admittedly, it lasts for all of 2 seconds, but it was featured so prominently in the trailer that it was obvious what they were going for. Still, good on Damon for admitting it was a bad decision and promising to keep it in mind in the future.

And I do hope Star Trek 3 has women in greater numbers and expanded roles. I had mentioned to someone recently that you could have made Adm Marcus a woman with next-to-no script changes and it wouldn’t have changed the dynamic much at all.

16. AyanEva - May 23, 2013

I voted for “maybe a little bit” because certain scenes and elements were borderline but the film on the whole was fine. Just the underwear scene is a little dodgy and Uhura’s character has issues for the reasons listed in this article. I still love the movie though and am not bothered enough by these issues for them to pose a major problem for me.

17. Zaphod - May 23, 2013

I thought it was freaking awesome. People really need to learn to relax a little.

18. sean - May 23, 2013

Oh, but I do disagree that Uhura was just there to humanize Spock. She’s given a lot to do (so much so that a certain section of fandom continues to cry foul of her increased prominence in these films). She holds off the Klingons (she’s the only one that actually stabs one!) and she stops Khan from turning Spock into tomato paste. Yes, she’s concerned about Spock’s behavior, but Kirk spends half the film obsessing over Spock’s behavior too, and I don’t think that diminished him as a character.

19. Gary 8.5 - May 23, 2013

i agree that the scene in question should not have happened .
But that was my only problem withe Carol Marcus character.
I liked Alice Eves portrayal , and, I hope she returns .

20. Notconfusedatall - May 23, 2013

@ Pretty Confused “Regarding the Starfleet Command meeting, yep, there was maybe one woman in there, which is crazy enough, no non-humans either, which also seems pretty bad. Even in the future it’s old white men in charge with no diversity…”

See I don’t think anyone really wins in a discussion like this. Lets suppose the room was full of different races and they all get slaughted. We’d get “sure the head white guy in charge survives but the black guy gets shot”

Or lets say Admiral Marcus was played by Denzel then we’d get “oh sure make the bad guy black”

There’s always going to be complaints like this and 99% of the time they’re completely invalid.

21. Merrilie Pederson - May 23, 2013

The movie was awesome! Just leave it at that.

22. Canadianknight - May 23, 2013

I’m afraid I must agree with #10.

In addition, Felcia Day posted a “rant” about “where are the strong women” roles, which I can agree with. She didn’t mention the underwear scene; it wasn’t about that. I’m not certain that qualifies as “similar” to this piece.

23. Trekboi - May 23, 2013

They have made effort with Uhura but where are Rand & Chapel or Ilea?
Why not more female captains & officers on the ship perhaps even a character?

24. sean - May 23, 2013

And it’s perfectly fine to admit the movie was a bit sexist and still enjoy it. Most all entertainment has problematic elements.

25. Trekboi - May 23, 2013

As for the underwear scene?
It was no accident on the writers or characters parts.

26. Spock Jr. - May 23, 2013

Rand, I agree! For me, the Kirk and Rand will-they-won’t-they was the best bit in TOS! He said… in a manly way.

27. psb2009 - May 23, 2013

Thanks for this article/commentary. Wether you agree (I do agree that ST should be smarter about the portrayal of women and also that it is also an old problem)or not, I think it shows that Star Trek fans can debate important topics.
Would love to see another article that summarizes the several articles I’ve seen this week about the terror/political issues that STID raises. I’ve seen 3 (on NPR, The New Yorker, and the Atlantic), there are probably more.

28. sean - May 23, 2013

#22

Chapel apparently transferred after her relationship with Kirk went south (this is discussed in a scene between Kirk & Marcus).

I really dug the new navigator that took over for Chekhov, she seemed pretty badass. And possibly Deltan!

29. LLAP - May 23, 2013

I totally agree in regards to the space undies scene, but I have to partially object to the characterization of the meeting as, “A bunch of old white human males (with maybe a token woman thrown in).” As others have pointed out, of the 20 people at the table, there are 6 or 7 women, plus 5 or 6 non-white humans, plus at least 2 aliens. While those numbers could be much better, and I think they should have been much better, I think the characterization as “a bunch of old white men” is unfair.

30. Jen - May 23, 2013

I agree that scene was utterly unnecessary but what I think is far worse is the lack of women in high command positions at Starfleet. They would just be background/token in any case, so why not just have them there, to show you have some understanding? And these non-apologies from Lindelof and JJ are annoying. Either apologize or don’t. The “we’re baffled that some of you apparently misconstrue” thing is not an apology.

31. FSJMusicMan - May 23, 2013

I seem to recall Uhura being rather key toward the end there (not saying anything spoilery)… the Uhura character in general has been greatly increased in the JJverse. I don’t see that really mentioned in this article

32. Spock Jr. - May 23, 2013

My ONLY complaint about Star Trek 2009 was that Uhura’s underwear was so boring! It could have been a little more futuristic, you know?

Oh, and I like that the green girl was shapely, sexy – not a stick insect, like you’d expect.

THAT pic of Carol Marcus, it’s… it’s like being punched in the heart. Every. Time.

33. Red Dead Ryan - May 23, 2013

Well, Damon Lindelof has admitted the mysogeny of the scene. No doubt about it, it is sexist.

Not to mention that the writers have misunderstood Kirk. During TOS, Kirk would respect a woman’s right to privacy and not merely turn around, but leave the shuttle. Kirk in TOS had flings with a bunch of women, but he was always respectful towards them, and there was always an element of romance in there.

Hopefully, they will delete this and the catwomen scene out of the movie and replace it with Khan in the shower, which was deleted for some reason.

34. Sunfell - May 23, 2013

I’m beginning to believe that a woman changing clothes in the middle of a scene has become something of a trope in the JJ-verse. Along with Kirk hanging from things, Spock losing his stuff, Bones spouting metaphores, and Uhura kicking ass.

Hey Bob Orci- give us ladies some eye-candy in the next one. I suggest Vulcan Yoga.

35. Gorandius - May 23, 2013

I really have no problem with the controversy, it’ll make people want to see the movie for themselves to find out if it really is an issue. My guess is that paramount probably did this themselves just to try and get more viewers. But I may just be a conspiracy theorist.

36. Spock Jr. - May 23, 2013

No fuss was made in TRANSFORMERS and such, when the girls were, well… camera-abused by Bay.

37. sean - May 23, 2013

#32

Kirk threatened to spank the Dohlman in Elaan of Troyius. Not the show’s (or Kirk’s) finest hour.

38. Spock Jr. - May 23, 2013

A gorgeous, gorgeous actress in her underwear – I like how we’re all so repressed that we can’t even comprehend such a thing! If Alice Eve didn’t want to shoot that scene, she wouldn’t have. I’ll bet she did, because she is hotter than that volcano at the beginning…

39. somethoughts - May 23, 2013

Well the poll settles it :) back to looking at eve mmmmmm

40. Commodore Stickler - May 23, 2013

Has it occurred to anyone that Carol Marcus decided to undress and told Kirk not to look specifically because she was trying to attract his attention and gave a cop out reason to make it happen. That was how I took the scene in the movie. She had already heard that Kirk was incredible with the ladies and, while working hard in order to save the Federation and keep her daddy from ding something stupid, she wanted a little action and Kirk hadn’t taken the bait yet. So she baited the hook with something a little more attractive. I didn’t think it detracted from her character in the slightest. It did give her a little bit of the “incredibly book smart but a little naive when it comes to relationships” appeal as far as I was concerned.

41. sean - May 23, 2013

#35

You are mistaken. Just Google ‘Michael Bay sexism’. Many people dislike his portrayal of women.

42. game changers - May 23, 2013

Who honestly cares what Felicia Day has to say about anything?

43. Trekkiegal63 - May 23, 2013

Great article (though I disagree with a few minor details). Speaking as a female and a Trekkie… yes, that scene was entirely unnecessary and gratuitous. Many critics have also been agreeing with that assessment as it has been mentioned in several reviews of the film. A few examples…

Flick Filosopher

…apart from one outrageously gratuitous shot of Alice Eve as Dr. Carol Marcus in her underwear, for which Abrams doesn’t bother to provide even the slightest contextual pretense…

Screen Invasion

New introductions to the universe such as Alice Eve‘s Dr. Carol Marcus, on the other hand, don’t even serve a purpose – well, at least beyond taking her clothes off in an embarrassingly contrived and sexist scene.

Coming Soon

The film’s female characters fare even worse, relegating Zoe Saldana’s Uhura to nothing more than “Spock’s girlfriend” and treating Alice Eve’s Carol Marcus as expository eye candy. That scene in the trailer where she’s in her underwear? That’s it. She just takes her clothes off in front of Kirk for a second for no real reason. It all feels dangerously misogynistic and very, very far from Gene Roddenberry’s egalitarian future.

What Culture

To that same token, many characters are given practically nothing to do, and it too often seems to be the females; as Carol, Eve has little agency, paraded out in her underwear in one unbearably perfunctory scene, and is simply a touchstone to allow the next plot beat to abound. Zoe Saldana’s Uhura, meanwhile, is demoted to the role of nagging girlfriend to Quinto’s Spock, even if it does generate a few haughty laughs.

Film Blerg

Alice Eve also joins the cast as scientist Dr. Carol Marcus, reminding the audience that no matter how far discussions on feminism and the female gaze in cinema go, there will still always be room for at least one flagrant voyeuristic shot of a female scantily clad in underwear for no real apparent reason.

End of Show

Alive Eve as Carol Marcus is a good attempt at bringing in a female character with a purpose other than exciting Kirk’s genitals, though it was one of her scenes which left a bad taste in my mouth and was the low point of the film. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for her to be shown in her underwear. No reason whatsoever. The plot did not require it and the character did not require it, which makes it gratuitous, which makes it sexist, which makes it old fashioned and an embarrassment.

44. Michael Li - May 23, 2013

It is ridiculous how people view this as sexist. JJ was of successful in achieving the goal to show that Kirk was a womanizer. People are just too focused on her breasts to notice that Kirk was enchanted by her and it said something bout his character. That was what the shot was about. If you can’t understand it don’t turn to a discussion of whether it was sexist, or not. I bet 99% of the people thinking this was sexist are fans of the series and think it was out of taste which would be contradictory anyways because sexual tension between genders especially between different species was apparent in all the trek series. Also, I bet those who think this is sexist wouldn’t look at Z. Quinto and Chris without a shirt on would be out of taste, which also would contradict them. Alice Eve is a beautiful creature and if you can’t bypass the cultural construct that constitutes sexism to appreciate her body, each she obviously works her to maintain, then you would reevaluate yourself a little.

45. Danielle - May 23, 2013

I really appreciated this article until the words: “I am by no means a feminist.” A feminist is just someone who believes in equality between the sexes–that’s it. Writing an article expressing concern over sexism and saying you’re not a feminist is completely ridiculous. I am so sick of women saying, “I believe in equal rights, but I’m not a feminist.” That phrase makes NO SENSE; it’s absolutely contradictory. There may be definitions of feminism out there that make it out to be radical and man-hating, but those are false definitions meant to discredit the movement. Feminism is about equality and nothing else, though there may be different ideas among feminists about the best ways to achieve equality or what equality looks like.

Now to move on off my soapbox, I would just like to say that I am a feminist, and I love Star Trek. I am getting a Ph.D. in English with an emphasis in feminist theory, and I have seen Into Darkness four times already. Do I think this scene is gratuitous, sexist, and exploitative? Absolutely. Do I think Uhura’s character is annoying and whiny? Definitely. But I still loved this movie.

Part of it is because Star Trek has always been a Kirk and Spock story. Spock is my favorite character, and I would rather see more Spock or even Scotty or Bones than Uhura, who’s just boring. These writers seem to have a hard time with female characters in Trek (which is weird, considering they worked on Alias).

The other part of it is because I’m so damn used to it. Yes, this scene is definitely gratuitous, but this is nowhere near as bad as half of Hollywood’s other movies. This is far from Michael Bay territory, for instance. At least this Trek attempts to make women smart and put them in command positions. But I also don’t think a little sexism should be simply dismissed just because there are worse instances of sexism out there.

I actually think part of the reason this is getting so much attention is because the filmmakers have addressed it. And you know what? Kudos to them. Most of the time the filmmakers don’t even acknowledge these issues, even when they’re raised by filmgoers. As a feminist, I definitely want to see more women who aren’t simply sexualized love interests. And I would like to see them in Trek. I’m glad that the filmmakers are responding to these concerns, and I hope that the next Trek will address these issues.

46. Spock Jr. - May 23, 2013

On a more interesting note, people are saying that Khan kicked Carol in the stomach – but I thought he broke her leg… He cracked her leg, right?

47. Trekkiegal63 - May 23, 2013

#42. Michael Li:

Alice Eve is a beautiful creature and if you can’t bypass the cultural construct that constitutes sexism to appreciate her body, each she obviously works her to maintain, then you would reevaluate yourself a little.

The body she unhealthily worked to maintain, you mean? Because here is a link to an article where she admitted prior to filming STID, she went on a diet of eating nothing but spinach for two months. Which any nutritionist would tell you? Not healthy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2319856/Star-Trek-actress-Alice-Eve-admits-eating-SPINACH-weeks.html

…which pretty much sums up the problem with objectifying women in media. It’s damaging, psychologically, and in this case, physically to women. But of course some of you don’t care about how objectification effects we women, of course not, why think of anything that doesn’t effect you directly yet gets in the way of your ogling?

48. I like pretty women - May 23, 2013

Maybe she just had a tequila right before the scene.

49. Trekkiegal63 - May 23, 2013

#45. Danielle:

Very well said! Thank you!

50. Spock Jr. - May 23, 2013

Sure BC worked out like crazy to shoot the shower scene, but that’s different, right? Somehow…

51. James Cannon - Runcorn Trekkie UK - May 23, 2013

So it’s ok to have Chris Pine in just his undies in 2009 & STID but not Alice Eve?

You can’t complain about women being semi naked and not the guys being semi naked …

52. William Bradley - May 23, 2013

Actually, Uhura and Carol Marcus both have major action beats in this movie.

That said, the lingerie scene is gratuitous, and Uhura is a bit too much angry Spock gf for my taste.

And the Starfleet war council in SF was suspiciously lacking in Trek-style diversity.

Spock is too emo, too, but that’s another matter.

Maybe Jennifer Garner needs to be cast in Star Trek …

53. sean - May 23, 2013

#46

He definitely crushed/broke her leg.

54. KG - May 23, 2013

Before I saw the movie, I was hoping that the Eve underwear scene was part of a larger scene where it made sense. The trailers made it look like a tacked on part that was put in just to get male, non-trekkie butts in seats. It was just gratuitous semi-nudity that pulled me out of the film and kind of pissed me off.

They could have saved it in the simplest fashion too. Just have Bones there changing into his landing-party outfit at the same time or just don’t have her change on camera in Kirk’s presence.

If the table was full of mostly female admirals and captains would there be a whole article about showing a bunch of women being slaughtered by Cumberbatch?

55. TBW - May 23, 2013

51…did you not actually read the piece?

And I agree with virtually every word of 45.

56. Yanks - May 23, 2013

Couple things.

Our new Star Trek seems to get something wrong WRT Kirk.

#1. The women were always after HIM!! He wasn’t stumbling over red-shirts running after the babes. He used them to protect his ship and crew. I actually think the scene with the 2 gals in bed (one with a tail) with him would be more gratuitous.

#2. I feeling I got in the movie WRT Carol in her space-undies was she wanted Kirk to get a peek. (glad she did BTW). Why can’t this be considered a precursor to them possibly getting into a relationship we all knew happened in the prime timeline?

No reason to change? Only saw it once, but wasn’t she getting ready to leave the ship and go down to the planet? Could it be that the “StarTrek female uniform” (short skirts and high boots) is not appropriate for that mission?

From the article: “Meanwhile, Uhura does little more than follow Spock around moaning about him having a death wish.”

That’s just bull. Uhura was used much better than she was in ST09. Watch the movie again if you don’t believe me.

57. Trekkiegal63 - May 23, 2013

#50. Spock Jr.:

BC also said he ate 4000 extra calories to compensate for the working out.

Whereas you cannot get enough calories – calories that our cells need – from a diet of only spinach. So yes, Eve’s diet was more unhealthy than Cumberbatch’s.

58. somethoughts - May 23, 2013

Undie scene is fine, no need to get panties in a bunch.

Good work all!

59. Neumann - May 23, 2013

I think you could make an argument, though, that so many of the non-regulars make terrible mistakes that you could get different flak for casting a woman, so it was a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation:

* If the MOTHER had performed the ring trick in the beginning, people could complain that “of course, all a woman cares about is her child so she can be easily brainwashed.”

* If that meeting was a bunch of women, then people would be complaining that the one scene that has the most new women, and the most powerful women, are all immediately killed and need a MAN to take care of business (and they were also too dumb to figure out it was a trap).

* If Carol Marcus was a bad guy (which I totally think should have happened), people would be complaining that the only new female character is of COURSE a villain who gets it at the end because this is a boy’s club. And she only does what daddy tells her. And you’d have a similar issue if Admiral Marcus was female, “of course a strong woman in authority turns out to be an evil bitch.”

* If some of the Klingons were female, their costumes would have to be quite different for the audience to know it, they’d have to telegraph gender from a distance and people would be calling that out. Though for all I know, maybe some of the Klingons were female, we just can’t tell because they are an equal society. Warriors in big coats and helmets, all!

So… what do you do? And I don’t mean this as a rhetorical, throw me your solutions, what would you change/add/remove to this movie to get rid of these problems.

60. Jeyl - May 23, 2013

“On Kronos, Uhura really gets to strut her stuff as the only person able to speak Klingon and decides to go up against a whole swarm of them”

Who gets grabbed by the neck and is about to be gutted in front of everyone and needs to be rescued by Khan. That’s the Bob and Alex way of dealing with female characters. Give them stuff to work with, but don’t have it mean anything in the long run.

61. Cmdr. Devlin - May 23, 2013

I found that scene completely unnecessary.
Kirk meets Carol. Both walk to the shuttle. Undressing scene… Cut… Kirk is on the bridge again, speaks with Chekov and the shuttle lands with Carol and Bones on the planetoid.
Most illogical.

62. James Cannon - Runcorn Trekkie UK - May 23, 2013

#55 yes. I’m just putting my thought across.

And it is an interesting article, I just think too much has been made of it.

63. Sybok's Secret Brother - May 23, 2013

It was a dumb move putting that scene in without the BC shower scene… should have been both or none.

64. Yanks - May 23, 2013

@ 45. Danielle – May 23, 2013
I really appreciated this article until the words: “I am by no means a feminist.” A feminist is just someone who believes in equality between the sexes–that’s it. Writing an article expressing concern over sexism and saying you’re not a feminist is completely ridiculous. I am so sick of women saying, “I believe in equal rights, but I’m not a feminist.” That phrase makes NO SENSE; it’s absolutely contradictory. There may be definitions of feminism out there that make it out to be radical and man-hating, but those are false definitions meant to discredit the movement. Feminism is about equality and nothing else, though there may be different ideas among feminists about the best ways to achieve equality or what equality looks like.
—————————————————————————————————–

Don’t agree with your take on this. Those that are in the forefront of “feminism” represent the fringe of a worthy movement and do not represent the majority of level headed folks that believe in “equality” and “equal rights”. They are nut-jobs that believe in inequality in favor of women.

If I were a woman, I wouldn’t want to be associated with them either.

65. spock - May 23, 2013

What a non controversy. Just watch the original 79 episodes.

66. Aashe - May 23, 2013

As a female, I am totally not upset about this at all. Let’s face it, women are beautiful and are predominantly oggled by men who are more about visuals than personality. Women’s sexuality is more complicated and we pay attention to beauty but beauty in our eyes can change based on personality. We are just as attracted to the clothed men with their strong personalities, confidence, and intelligence, as men are to a mostly naked lady.

Ultimately, this is an action flick. Most of us Trekkers/Trekkies will love these movies regardless of the female roles and in order to attract the non-Trekker male audience, who is more likely to attach to an action film, they throw in a mostly naked chick and focus on Kirk and Spock. It’s smart even if it isn’t fair. Sexist or not, the trust is that most women don’t want to watch action flicks. I love them but I’m not your typical female.

I think we also fail to take into account how sexist ALL movies are. Women are NOT innocent in sexism and there are lots of sexist women’s movies. Men just don’t complain about it because they weren’t oppressed. Action movies have strong male characters and naked chicks, and romcoms have naked dudes and strong female characters. It’s simply catering to the audience because the target audience sees life that way and they need to be able to relate.

The one issue I have is that Gene Roddenberry probably would have preferred to have a stronger role for Uhura. Any Trekker knows how important Uhura was to him and his ultimate goals and to have her as a side piece is kind of shameful.

67. CaptainDonovin - May 23, 2013

Did anyone complain when Scott Bakula was wandering in his quarters in his undies in the pilot for Enterprise? That didn’t bother me & nor did Alice Eve’s scene.

68. The Sinfonian - May 23, 2013

A good filmmaker could have focused with a tight shot on Carol’s FACE, rather than full frontal almost-nude, and had the scene play out almost the same. Kirk’s expression could have conveyed his reaction to Carol as being smart and beautiful…. which completely goes against his previous types…

I wish Pine had been given better direction. Carol should be the one to break Kirk of his academy play-days. It is the experience with her in TOS that clearly matured him.

A better director could have had this scene, sans Alice’s full body, and not only done it in a classy way, but also shown character development. In that I completely fault JJ for being a rather inexperienced director still…. and Bob and Alex for being too planking fun to step back and realize what they’ve written sometimes.

69. Anthony Lewis - May 23, 2013

Yeah……where was the article on this in 2009 when Zoe literally stripped down with sexy camera shots and all that jazz.

It’s cool because Kirk was in his underwear as well? That makes it less gratuitous?

I can’t stand sexism, there is a lot of TOS I can’t stand because it is full of it. Hell it took Trek ’till it;’s 3RD SPINOFF to have a main female lead as captain.

This wasn’t sexist. It may have been a pointless that did little else but show that Kirk had an eye for his future baby mama but that was already established in an earlier scene.

70. geodesic17 - May 23, 2013

She was changing into her flight uniform for the away mission.

71. Bell - May 23, 2013

@31-the scene at the end was a pretty lame way to show us she can be action girl as well. All she did was shoot a phaser a few times that distracted him for a second. Not the big take down I was hoping for. I would have much prefer she had more screen time on Kronos with the Klingons. And you’re right, the Uhura role HAS been greatly increased in this universe…by being Spocks girlfriend. I know people will come and whine that I’m wrong but this article is 100% right. I’m not saying she is a weak woman or bad character, but don’t try to tell me most of what she says/does doesn’t revolve around Spock when we have 2 films that prove otherwise.

I was looking forward to seeing Carol be the smart, beautiful officer we deserve, only o have her strip down in the most random scene imaginable. I’m sad knowing now that, like Uhura, she will probably become the love interest of the main character and then her time on screen will be devoted to that with a few professional ones thrown in to quickly remind us that they still have a job on the Enterprise. They both deserve better than that. For Uhura I want more scenes like on Kronos, and for Carol I want more scenes like the one with her disarming torpedoes are maybe talking science with Spock.

72. Dr. Cheis - May 23, 2013

I can’t help but be skeptical about a poll on a website about Star Trek indicating a majority (as of my posting) think it wasn’t sexist. The stereotype suggests the users of this site will be overwhelmingly male.

I will say I disagreed with the conclusion of the undies scene. Now I did have that opinion of it when I first saw it in the trailer, but in the full context of the movie it makes sense to me.
*There was no reason for her to change clothes:
I don’t remember the exact placement of the scene in the movie, but I think she was changing from one uniform to another. There were a lot of costume changes in this movie, hers was just the only one we saw happening.

*There was no reason for her to change in front of Kirk./There was no reason for her to change in a shuttlecraft with the back door hanging wide open:
I thought this actually told us a lot about her character, particularity considering this isn’t just any brainy scientist. It’s Carol Marcus. Marcus wasn’t in the least bit phased by Kirk. She literally tells the captain to turn around and does not expect that she will need to explain herself further. She doesn’t care that it’s an unusual spot to change. It’s an efficient spot to change and she has work to do. Kirk’s reaction was informative to me also. It wasn’t just a look of “hey look at that broad!” but “she really just did that.” He seemed impressed with her personality, not just her physical attributes. Given where these two characters will likely be doing, establishing the beginning of their relationship like this feels very fitting.

And I thought this underwear scene was a lot more appropriate than the one with Uhura changing from the last one.

73. Tesla's Cat - May 23, 2013

Just on the point of the lack of parity between male and female characters, Roddenberry’s original intention was to have equivalence between the sexes, but was not allowed to do so because of the prejudices of the times he lived in. It’s a pity then that 40+ years later, we’re no further along.

74. Picard, Jean-Luc - May 23, 2013

I think there’s a tendancy for people to get all high and mighty about this kind of thing.

But…

Do I think this scene had a point? No. Why Marcus had to change her clothes in the first place was beyond me but do I think it was sexist? Oh please. If it was sexist to women it could have also been seen as sexist to men by the way Kirk acted as some horny guy wanting to get a peek at a almost naked woman.

Trek was always about putting women in tea towels for no reason. The TOS style Uniform is hardly practical so in keeping with Star Trek’s style, JJ Abrams added some skin for the hell of it. Lets move on.

The problem here is we’ve all become to PC in what we deem acceptable. The character played by Alice Eve was an intelligent weapons expert and Doctor, had she just been there to do Kirk’s sexual bidding then that would have been wrong but she wasn’t.

Since when is it wrong for people to show off their bodies. Roddenberry may have had some good ideas but he loved his women barely clothed. Into Darkness and 2009 Trek was full of a fraction of the sexual content that TOS was – the amount of times I saw Nichelle Nichol’s red underwear!

75. Crazy Ben Finney - May 23, 2013

This movie really IS going to get nit-picked to death. Damn, I just thought it was great entertainment.

76. geodesic17 - May 23, 2013

I think this is all over reacting and soapboxing for an otherwise important issue.

I saw this movie with women. The take away wasn’t that Marcus was a a sex object. It was that Kirk is a bit of a perv.

77. Luka - May 23, 2013

Totally unnecessary scene… sorry… And even more sorry for Alice Eve, since that was supposed to be HER moment in the film.
How poor and embarrassing.

78. Reign1701A - May 23, 2013

Unnecessary? Yes, it would have been better if it was part of a romantic scene between Kirk and Marcus. Controversial though? No, talk about an overreaction.

I thought people would make a bigger uproar over the fact that the women in Starfleet still have MINISKIRTS and no rank braiding on their uniforms. I think that’s more “controversial” than this.

79. Anonymous Coward - May 23, 2013

A little gratuitous skin is about the only bit of Roddenberry left in the JJ-Verse. ;-)
Considering how awful and ridiculous these JJ-Trek movies are, this may be the least of Bad Robot’s transgressions.

Stricly speaking, sexy has always been a part of the ST universe. Roddenberry was a pig and WW Theiss had no trouble trying to show off as much back or thigh or under-boob as he could. But usually the characters showing so much skin had more going for them than that.
I’m not sure this Carol Marcus measures up.

If rehashing Khan and gratuitous nudity are the only thing the producers of STID think the general public remember of ST, it speaks more of them than any of the viewers here.

80. TUP - May 23, 2013

It’s unbelievably stupid that this is an issue.

Strong women don’t have to be button down ice queens. They can be strong AND sexy.

Personally I thought the scene was a wink wink to its own gratuitousness. It was very unneeded but thats why I thought they did it. I didnt bat an eye when seeing Kirk in his underwear.

Get over it.

81. David - May 23, 2013

I rolled my eyes at the scene with Carol Marcus in her underwear both in the theater and when I saw the trailers. I thought that it was pandering and trying to draw in young male viewers. It was completely pointless, even if it was only for two seconds. While yes the Uhura scene with Kirk and her roommate had more context to it, I think it had more to do with showing the girls in their underwear than it did to show Kirk’s record in the prime timeline for getting with different woman (for various reasons, whether for love or as a ploy to foil an adversary). The scene with the two twin alien girls was also unnecessary.

Don’t get me wrong, sexuality shouldn’t be shunned from film and television, but sometimes it comes off as rather pointless and over the top. Certainly Trek isn’t the worst offender on this.

82. Daniel Broadway - May 23, 2013

It’s too late. I’ve already seen everything. Heh. :p

83. Check the Circuit - May 23, 2013

I didn’t think the underwear scene was supposed to be Carol Marcus’ big moment in the movie. That was just to bring in the teenage boys. Her character has a lot more to do than that.

She thought her father was up to something so sneaked aboard the Enterprise to investigate.

She saved McCoy’s life by deactivating the torpedo.

She risked her life to save the crew of the Enterprise by revealing her presence to her father.

She boldly confronted her father about his actions.

She pitched in during the fight when Kirk and Scotty tried to take the bridge of the Vengeance.

Doesn’t seem like a damsel in distress to me. She carried her weight and then some.

84. boy - May 23, 2013

72. Dr. Cheis – May 23, 2013

And I thought this underwear scene was a lot more appropriate than the one with Uhura changing from the last one.

_________________________________________________________

Dude what are you smoking?

The carol scene was way worse. Uhura stripped in her own room like any regular person . she had no idea that kirk was hiding under the bed and when she saw kirk hiding she got mad and angrily asked him to leave. She basically pushed him out.

the Carol scene was just pointless…even the way she posed , it was like she was at the end of a Victoria secret cat walk waiting for the photographers to take a shot of her modelling a lingerie.

I am seeing an ugly pattern here…Uhura seems to get bashed a lot and get torn down on this site yet the same people are willing to make excuses for carol and give her a free pass.

hmmm….I wonder why.

85. Danpaine - May 23, 2013

#84….yawn. Please, break out that old chestnut.

Why am I even still reading this thread?

86. smike - May 23, 2013

The scene was way awkward but hardly worth the ado… it felt unnecessary and not well acted, but not at all sexist… Quite on the contrary. It made Kirk look dumb, not Carol Marcus…

But having all that discussion makes me feel sad about the state of sensuality in the States. I doubt anyone in Europe would even mention it. We’ve got topless scenes in some all-age comedies over here. Underware wouldn’t be an issue at all, even if so clumsily handled as in this scene.

It just wasn’t a good scene. But there are far more badly handled scenes and ideas in this film, such as Scotty, Kirk dangling at the railing and Chekov saving them, or the infamous Transwarp beaming to planets lightyears away… If wish these issues would be met with the same outrage as this insignificant underware scene…

87. smike - May 23, 2013

underwear :-) no I’m not unaware of that LOL

88. RJT - May 23, 2013

71. Bell

“All she did was shoot a phaser a few times that distracted him for a second. Not the big take down I was hoping for.”

What she actually did was save Spock from death. Did you not see him getting his head crushed? He was dying. She in essence saved Spock and Kirk from death, and her actions allowed Khan to be captured. How realistic would it have been to have her take down Khan when Spock needed help doing it? It had already been established that the stun setting didn’t work on him. Uhura simply used it to not cause fatal injury & to delay & distract him with it. To use any other setting would have meant Kirk would surely have died. She put her life on the line in that scene because if Spock would have died, she surely would have been next. Uhura is smart and beautiful. She’s not stupid. She was incredibly helpful in that scene whether some choose to acknowledge that or not.

89. Nick Tierce - May 23, 2013

Underplaying the narrative function of the female roles by reductive generalizing reveals how interpretively mediocre this entire “controversy” ultimately is. These offended viewers are as lazy as they accuse the movie of being.

90. Timncc1701 - May 23, 2013

This was no more gratuitous than Shirtless Shatner in TOS. Curiously, in the few times I saw STID, the audience was about 80 percent or more male. It looked like a Rush concert. So the producers knew their audience.

91. Bell - May 23, 2013

@88 RJT- . Uhura is smart and beautiful. She’s not stupid. She was incredibly helpful in that scene whether some choose to acknowledge that or not.

I never said she wasn’t smart or beautiful, just that I found the take down of Khan pretty anticlimactic. A phaser stunned him before briefly, but not this time? After multiple shots? They can’t beam up from moving too fast but they can beam her down atop a fast moving shuttle? The scene didn’t make much sense to me.

I said Uhura shot a phaser a few times and distracted him. What about that statement is inaccurate? That is exactly what happened. I’m not saying she didn’t help, but it could have been anyone who did that. After such an exciting fight I was looking or something more.

92. Adrian - May 23, 2013

“I am by no means a feminist.” — So you don’t think women should have the same rights as men, then?

93. Exverlobter - May 23, 2013

If Gene Roddenberry would be still alive he would probably congratulate Abrams and further demand additional scenes with Alice Eve in her underwear!

94. Boy - May 23, 2013

I have mixed feeling about Uhura saving Spock.

First thing…she only went down there because her boyfriend was the one that was in trouble. While I commend her for it, the real question is ..if Bones , Scotty or Sulu had gone down to take on Khan would she have gone to save any of them?

The answer is probably … NO.

So yeah to some extent Uhura as a character was a little bit sexist but just a little bit.

95. Exverlobter - May 23, 2013

Bonnie mentions StarWars as a possivite example because Lea kills Jabba the hut, but forgets that Uhura is the one who stops John Harrison in the end.

96. Mike - May 23, 2013

@84-
No one is tearing down UHURA for her underwear scene, she didn’t write the movie. Her and Carols underwear scene are both pointless and used to draw more fanboys in.

“Hmmm…I wonder why”

Oh do please tell. I can already guess but seeing it brought up as an excuse to anyone who might possibly like Carol more than Uhura is always entertaining.

97. Newdivide1701 - May 23, 2013

Well one thing people have to remember that even in the 23rd century, there are men and women, not unisex people with either boobs or wieners.

It’s where men are still men and women are still women, only that their genders are not being treated as a handicap, nor do they go with the obsolete concept of a woman’s place is in the kitchen.

To dumb it down for those who still claim sexist, even in the 23rd century it’s okay for men to have an eye for women and for women to have an eye for men. Not because of the sole purpose of reproduction, but because of who they are.

Broad shoulders, nice rear, solid chin, nice rack, yadda yadda yadda.

Even better, this adds sexual tension between Carol and Kirk because in the original timeline, guess who is suppose to come along?

And even though I am speaking heterosexually, it’s still the same with a homosexuality.

98. Rick - May 23, 2013

@94- yea but it was a pretty lame way to take Khan down. Like they needed one more thing for Uhura to do so we could buy her as an action star. Her speaking Klingon and stabbing one was way cooler.

Then again at least she never had to dress up like Leia did and be chained to a gross, fat monster lol

99. Boy - May 23, 2013

95. Mike – May 23, 2013
@84-
No one is tearing down UHURA for her underwear scene, she didn’t write the movie. Her and Carols underwear scene are both pointless and used to draw more fanboys in.

“Hmmm…I wonder why”

Oh do please tell. I can already guess but seeing it brought up as an excuse to anyone who might possibly like Carol more than Uhura is always entertaining.
——————————————————————————————–

this is not about who you find entertaining ….its a running pattern here. Uhura gets unfairly bashed just for even speaking. case in pointed cheisis comment were brain dead and useless..only a fool will think that carol’s underwear scene made more scene than uhura’s in the first film

so why give carol a pass

100. RJT - May 23, 2013

90. Bell – May 23, 2013

“I never said she wasn’t smart or beautiful”

I know. I did.

“A phaser stunned him before briefly, but not this time?”

How do we know it stunned him briefly? Seems to me that he was faking it.

“They can’t beam up from moving too fast but they can beam her down atop a fast moving shuttle? ”

An agreed upon plot point that need to be addressed to the writers.

“The scene didn’t make much sense to me”

A lot of things in the movie didn’t make sense–but it’s what we got, and that is what we are all discussing.

“I said Uhura shot a phaser a few times and distracted him. What about that statement is inaccurate? ”

You said: “All she did” was shoot a phaser a few times that distracted him for a second. Her actions contributed more than that which is what I outlined in my response.

101. JimBoB - May 23, 2013

the women libbers can run with this if its one thing its another. anyway with the lindelof apology I don’t think it was an apology to the masses to shut them up, it was to cover his butt and future career.

Look at the movies en-mass coming out all the time same stuff happens most of the time and squat is said about it.

My friend she just laughs at this diversity crap getting thown around these days, and no she didn’t have a problem with that scene she thought it played into Kirk always after woman.

102. Gorn Captain - May 23, 2013

@37 Oh please! Elaan was a spoiled little royal brat who needed to be taught manners, not to mention a peace treaty between two planets was going to fall apart if she didn’t marry. Context is everything.

And Kirk is well known for his bluffs. ;)

103. Karen - May 23, 2013

What I find particularly irritating is the attempt to rationalise the totally crap underwear scene with the argument that Kirk has his shirt off too so that makes it okay. The gender power imbalance between those two images is a mile wide, the subtext is totally different, and the intent is totally different. Kirk in bed is shot briefly, and the camera is not being used voyeuristically, to exploit the state of his undress. The complete opposite is true of the Marcus scene.

Plain and simple, what’ s happened in the film is knee-jerk, unthinking status quo sexist, patriarchal storytelling. Why wasn’t the captain of the Bradbury a woman? Why was the default casting a man? Sure, they ticked the racial diversity box by making him African-American, but why wasn’t that character a woman? Why did it never even occur to you that the Bradbury’s captain *could* be a woman?

So much male knee jerk casting in the film, with the non-speaking background characters, too. I’m sorry guys, but you were lazy. You never once bothered to think outside your comfortable status quo. Part of the problem is that you are functioning in a testosterone chamber. You need to have more than the straight white male perspective happening in your storytelling. You are better than this.

104. Eric Cheung - May 23, 2013

Thank you for this article. This did bother me, as it was totally gratuitous.

If there’s an article on this, will there be a similarly insightful article on the whitewashing of SPOILERS Khan? That seems to be a similar misstep on the part of the filmmakers here.

Looking back, even the rest of the cast is a whiter, or lighter-skinned, version of the original actors. It’s not something that one might notice with each individual actor, but when taken as a whole it’s definitely a regressive trend.

It’s not just about in-universe reationalization, but the real-world trend at the expense of actors of color.

105. Exverlobter - May 23, 2013

@103
You already had a female Captain in Voyager but are still complaining sigh.

106. sean - May 23, 2013

#102

There is no context to justify that scene. It’s sexist and gross.

107. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 23, 2013

#12 – “And TrekMovie has become Daily Mail! Oh, the outrage! The scandal! And the scene is so shocking, here – here is the picture again!”

God yes. Yet again we have someone saying – Look at how demeaning it is for women having such a gratuitous scene of a woman in her underwear that we will keep showing the picture over and over and keeping talking it up/moaning about it.

In the trailer, it was a scene that if you blinked you would miss. In fact, I did miss it the first time I watched the trailer. Now it’s probably the one scene out of the entire movie that people make sure they don’t blink and miss – either to ogle, or to delight in the loveliness of the woman, or to be disgusted and shocked, but wait, we need to be shown the picture again, just to be sure, especially if it is the picture of all the sexual objectification that we want to apply to that picture and to feel shocked and disgusted all over again…Holy crap!

Actually, I found the article of this thread here to be rather misogynistic, along with some of the criticisms made by some of the “feminists”.

* The criticism made about Uhura being concerned for her fellow co-worker who is in a position of authority, I might add, (and lover) because, since the destruction of Vulcan et al, he is showing serious suicidal tendencies, is beyond the pale. She is said to be “moaning” etc about Spock’s erratic behaviour, something Kirk had also noted, by the way. Have you people lost your minds?

“I’m actually glad the woman in the command meeting was mostly edited out of the final cut as in the trailers we saw her get shot, start screaming, and Kirk has to save her… Ludicrous!”

* I don’t remember the woman screaming in that deleted shot. Then again, why shouldn’t she scream – she had just been shot and what with the noise etc – that is what some people do… Kirk did not *save* her. He went to see if he could help her, perhaps console her, just what any decent, kind, self-respecting human being might do in the circumstances. Why is that “ludicrous”? Nobody has criticized Spock for carrying an injured Pike to a safer place and staying with him as he died. Honestly, what is the matter with people?

What does seem to coming through in all this discussion is that it is somehow wrong, gratuitous even, for men, and especially women, to be seen as being caring, concerned, having a humanizing effect, encouraging to a fellow officer (and lover) – except, of course, if these are shown to facilitate the bromance mythology. God – this is so patriarchal and sexist.

Lt Uhura is WOMAN (or certainly working towards it) – she is intelligent, independent, physically and emotionally courageous, who knows what she needs and wants, and loves without measure. Would that we could all be like that, irrespective of our gender?

Carol Marcus is probably not far behind.

It is time we gave these women a break…and allowed them to become not just Woman, but truly *Human. The same could also apply to Kirk and the other men as well…Kirk can attempt to look after a male/female in distress
and still be Man, becoming truly *Human.

* as in being and manifesting the most positive aspects of what it means to be human…(Jesus, the Buddha…could give a few clues in this regard).

108. Diego - May 23, 2013

“I am by no means a feminist.”

Why was there a need to add this caveat?

The next sentence, “As a woman, I’m all for the equal treatment of women.”, indicates the author is in fact a feminist. This is pretty much the definition of feminist for me.

I think it’s a real shame that the term has become so freighted with negative connotations that people are actively avoiding it. There are surely different kinds of feminists and you need not agree 100% with one particular subset of the movement to still be a feminist. The same thing is true for humanist (or the really knee-jerk term, “atheist”). There is nothing wrong with being a feminist, and I’d say this should be especially true for Star Trek fans.

109. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 23, 2013

The controversial scene could have easily been done differently, with the same result – Carol Marcus in landing party outfits, just as Dr McCoy was dressed in his outfit.

Kirk and Marcus were walking towards the shuttle, while she was explaining to him x,y,z. He was following her to the point where she walked into the shuttle. At that point, she could/should have said to him, politely, but firmly, “Excuse me, I need to get changed now. Do you mind…?” and gently waved him out of the shuttle. Why that didn’t happen, I do not know.

The scene is what it is. Kirk did comply with her request. He did not lay a hand on her nor cause her harm. The fact that what happened as it did had as much to do with Carol Marcus not clarifying what and why, from the get-go. Maybe this whole scene points (loosely) to the fact that men and women are necessarily clear about their desires and needs etc, even to themselves, which can bring about confusing behaviours and misunderstandings…

110. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 23, 2013

Darn – my thinking the word, then typing the next word –

Should read “…men and women are NOT necessarily clear…”

111. Kay - May 23, 2013

I’m a woman and I don’t find this to be a big deal at all .I didn’t blink an eye at it, feel demeaned, or bemoan the precedent it might set for teenage girls. Kirk eyeing women shows Kirk likes women. Carol expecting him to stay turned around shows Carol doesn’t know Kirk. In the TOS it’s a big deal that Kirk liked this particular woman. It could be foreshadowing.

112. Nony - May 23, 2013

Hmm. Have you guys heard of the Hawkeye Initiative? It’s a movement in comics fandom where, in order to point out the misogyny problems in the industry and determine whether or not something is sexist towards women, comics illustrations are re-done with Clint Barton in the same pose as the female character(s). If he looks ridiculous, it’s a good bet the illustration of the woman is a sexist one. If he looks natural and not deliberately sexualized, with no wantonly spread legs, spinal contortions, or metal bikini armour, the female character is probably being represented in a respectful way.

I think a similar principle could be applied here. Is this scene one which makes logical sense, and would it be shot, make it all the way to the final cut because it’s been deemed absolutely necessary, and be approved by the Hollywood studios financing the film and used for marketing, all with the male and female characters’ roles reversed from what the scene presently is? Let’s try.

Carol Marcus and James Kirk board the shuttle. Kirk is wearing a cap-sleeved gold top with no rank stripes, high boots, and short shorts, his usual uniform, arms bare and legs exposed to the mid-thigh. Marcus is wearing trousers and a long-sleeved blue shirt, her usual, the same style Uhura favours. Once inside, Kirk tells Marcus to turn away. Marcus does for a moment as Kirk talks, but then she betrays his trust and looks back around – Kirk is standing there, full-body shot of him posing in bikini-style underwear and nothing else, crotch particularly illuminated by the light from the windows. Marcus stares. “Turn around,” Kirk says without moving, mildly annoyed, one arm a bit extended so that the audience can get a full look.

This shot of Chris Pine in tight, shiny blue underwear is later used in marketing, in commercials, in trailers. A secret code to unlock fan content is hidden in that scene, to encourage everyone to pause it there, a reward for gawking. The shot pops up in the very first row of images when you Google image search either “Chris Pine” or “James T. Kirk,” along with many of the other lingerie and bedroom shots Pine has done over the years to promote his career, as young male actors are expected to do. Mainstream media outlets and entertainment sites eagerly zero in on Pine’s naked body as they report on new trailers: “Kirk looks sexy in his space speedo in Into Darkness teaser,” “Pine shows us the goodies in new Trek shot,” “Captain Kirk’s ample nacelles,” and feature it as the header image in their news articles and as the screencap image in their YouTube videos. Some fans, many male, protest that Kirk is being objectified; others tell them they’re ridiculous and overreacting, that there’s nothing wrong with admiring an attractive man, that they should stop being prudes, that they’re probably just annoyed because they’re not as attractive as Pine is, that men in banana hammocks is just what’s always done in sci-fi blockbusters to bring in the all-important female audience, that there’s probably a legitimate reason for Kirk posing almost naked on a shuttle and we’ll see when the movie comes out, that Gene Roddenberry would have approved of sexing things up like that because he did it all the time in the ’60s, before things got so PC and all the men’s libbers appeared to ruin the fun. Remember the minidresses Kirk and Spock and Bones wore, with the matching booty shorts underneath for when they did stunts? Remember the hot Orion slave boy dancing for Uhura and Rand?

So. Can you envision this being the real world? The answer, likely, is ‘no’.

113. Karen - May 23, 2013

@105 Everlobter

My lord, do you even hear yourself? Out of the scores of captains and other senior ‘fleet personnel, there was one female captain so shut up with your whinging?

When women make up at least 50% of the human population, there should be a damn sight more than one female captain and other female leadership roles. What the hell is wrong with you, that you could be so fatuously ignorant?

If what you really mean is that you believe women should sit down, shut up and stay in the back of the bus, have the guts to come out and say it. And have the guts to come out and say it with your real name in the real world, where you’d have to answer with real consequences for that stone age attitude.

@108 Diego

Word! The problem is, though, that there is a vocal substrand of feminism that unfortunately looks to turn men into the enemy. While sometimes I want to slam heads (see my above comment as my levels of frustration rise) the tragic truth is that men are as damaged by anti-women attitudes as women are. I don’t believe all men are the enemy, I don’t believe they’re inherently dreadful, I don’t believe they’ve no worth beyond being walking sperm donors. I think a lot of men — and sadly it seems Mr Abrams is one of them – are so used to the default male privilege status quo that they can’t see past it and are apparently unwilling to step back and take a look at the many things they take for granted in our current social/cultural environment.

But that doesn’t make him or them bad people. It makes them comfortably blind. And now their boat is being rocked and they don’t like it. It’s not pleasant, but honestly? Too bad. And to the male fans getting their boxers in a twist and resorting to nastiness to try and shut up the wimminz?

As Spock roughly says — the fact you’re resorting to name calling means you’re getting defensive and therefore I must assume my point is valid.

Ah, the irony, that it was the male Trek team who wrote those words, and started this brouhaha in the first place.

114. Karen - May 23, 2013

@112 Nony

Brilliant. Thank you.

The point that a great many people seem to be working very hard not to see is that the objection to that scene is not about her state of undress, per se. It’s because the use of it in that scene has no purpose beyond the titillation of fanboys and the reduction of Marcus to a sexual object. It is, yet again, the use of female nudity/semi nudity to reduce a female character to nothing more than a pair of tits for the delectation of the male gaze. The very specific angling of the shot, and the lighting, combine to sexualise her in a way that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual context/content of the scene itself.

In any number of scenarios, her lack of dress would not be a problem. Uhura’s underwear scene in the first film was not exploitative, it had context and relevance and was not objectionable. There was no uproar over it that I can remember because clearly, she wasn’t being objectified and reduced to a pair of tits.

Sometimes it’s beyond disheartening that in 2013 we still have to point out this kind of crap, and endure abuse and dismissal for doing so. But if we stop fighting nothing changes.

115. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 23, 2013

The whole scene could have been handled better. There were complaints when this first appeared in a trailer. Some (including me) took the view that this was being used as a hook to get more of the young male demographic to show up to the movie, at which time the actual movie scene would probably play out in a more balanced, and less gratuitous, way.

Unfortunately, I was wrong… That doesn’t mean I can’t come up with a rationalisation to explain the scene’s purpose in the context of the movie. But then again, as a trekkie, I can rationalise just about anything if you give me enough rope ;-)

The bottom line for me: yes, I think it’s gratuitous; but no, I don’t think it’s utterly appalling that it’s there. It did take me ‘out of the moment’ (similarly to Spock’s scream) while watching the movie. I didn’t have a problem with ‘cat women’ scene. I didn’t have a problem with the wetsuits.

As for the women (Uhura and Marcus) being played as damsels in distress. I just don’t see it. To me, they both came across as professionals with jobs to do. They needed rescuing only in the same way just about every one of the main crew needed rescuing at some time or other. Here are a few examples:

Kirk rescues Spock (volcano)
Spock rescues Pike (Harrison’s attack. Unfortunately Pike dies)
Spock & Uhura rescue Kirk (Qo’noS)
Harrison rescues Kirk/Spock/Uhura (Qo’noS)
Marcus rescues McCoy (planetiod)
Chekov rescues Kirk & Scott (Engineering)
Uhura rescues Spock (floating barge)

The list is not exhaustive, but you get the point.

116. al - May 23, 2013

I don’t see how that scene was sexist. I mean…she told kirk to turn around. But did he know what she was going to do. ?And when he did turn around, he was surprised. She could have said, “I’m changing, turn around. Don’t look” or she could’ve changed in another compartment of the shuttle craft. She knew what the hell she was doing. Women are so full of it. We can all thank Eve for the mess were all in. If Adam wasn’t so pussywhipped…he would’ve never taken a bite from that apple.

117. Exverlobter - May 23, 2013

@113 Karen.

You are a bit over sensitive arent you.
There were tons of female flag-officers in Star Trek, not just Janeway.
There was Admiral Nechachev, who was commanding Picard around. There was Admiral Satie, Admiral Shantie… all females.

There were also some female Captains like the one from the Whale film, or the one from th episode Conspiracy.

118. Timncc1701 - May 23, 2013

Has it occurred to anyone that, setting aside the obvious inequalities in rank, Dr. Marcus was using her own sexual power over Kirk? Her character is obviously interested in him, given canon. Could it be that she knew he would probably look, because of his dog reputation, and that she was showing him what he was missing unless he would grow up and show more respect towards women? She knew he had a roll in the hay with Chapel in this universe, and knew she could not trust him. Maybe they don’t get together in this universe because this Kirk is so over the top a player. Given the characters’ motivations, and history in the prime universe, there are more layers to this than just a gratuitous display of Dr. Marcus.

119. geodesic17 - May 23, 2013

If boborci is reading, I think you’ve all done a good job of adding more women to the cast. Just from deciding to do TOS Trek, you have a 5 male to 1 female ratio in the original cast. Introducing new characters takes screen time away from the main cast.

Please continue to add female characters as supporting characters. Maybe even reboot Janice Rand as an enlisted officer. Then again, there is already a blonde on the team with the addition of Carol Marcus. Maybe another supporting character can be introduced.

Maybe add a character like Alyssa Ogawa (TNG) to sickbay — not a nurse, but a colleague of Dr. McCoy’s.

120. Red Dead Ryan - May 23, 2013

I think there are a lot of Talifans out there who don’t think women deserve to be treated and regarded as being equal. I surprised that none of these folks have demanded that Uhura wear a burka, and sit in the corner pushing buttons while not being allowed to speak. Because that is the feeling I’m getting here.

Y’know, Trekkies like to consider themselves enlightened, and better than “Star Wars” fans. While some clearly are tolerant and welcoming of better roles for women, and the inclusion of women into fandom in general, there are a number of “men” (I use the term very lightly) who clearly aren’t allowing others who disgree (both men and women) with them simply because their opinion is different from their own.

And as usual, Keachick has missed the point of the valid criticisms brought up by some, including Kayla, on this site.

121. Exverlobter - May 23, 2013

@119

Adding additional female characters will even more reduce the screentime for Chekov and Sulu.
I think the balance is fine now.

122. Chuck - May 23, 2013

As I said earlier, I thoroughly enjoyed STID including every scene with Alice Eve. She is a very talented and beautiful actress and a great choice to play Carol Marcus. It was also her choice to do the scene.
Carol Marcus wanted Kirk to see her. She liked him as well. She wasn’t sincerely complaining about his looking at her and Kirk knew it. That’s why he was smiling at her. It’s the beginning of a romance and nothing for which to apologize.
Maybe the PC wise think that arguing about the appropriateness of her underwear scene will get them closer to Heaven.

123. Trekkiegal63 - May 23, 2013

#112. Nony:

Nony, as always, your post was eloquent and a delight to read… (off to google ‘Hawkeye Initiative’ – I’m already rather enamored with it and I’ve only read your description thus far).

124. geodesic17 - May 23, 2013

I disagree with this part of the article:
There was no reason for her to change clothes. There was no reason for her to change in front of Kirk. There was no reason for her to change in a shuttlecraft with the back door hanging wide open.

In the movie, they are in a hurry. There is a sense of urgency. They are walking/talking and she’s getting ready for an away mission as they planning it.

Whether or not showing it on-screen is gratuitous is a valid criticism. But most of the controversy around this is off-base.

125. Lt. Dakin - May 23, 2013

Y’know what? 2012 was the summer of Magic Mike and a year later we are really taking crap over 2 seconds of a woman in a bikini?

Give me a break.

126. geodesic17 - May 23, 2013

Are we talking about Star Trek: Into Darkness or Porky’s?

127. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 23, 2013

#116 – Wow – The Adam and Eve Genesis story, along with the outcome and interpretation, going back to the “Good Book” itself – boy, if that is not rank misogyny, I don’t know what is. Unfortunately, that myth and the psychological import has become so ingrained most of our psyches over well, thousands of years, that it underpins much of the crap that goes on and has been going on for such a long time.

And Judeo-Christians wonder why there are so many agnostic/atheists in the world? Duh!

Unfortunately, this is not the only misogynistic religion, which could account for the reasons why female feotuses are being dismembered and dislodged from their mothers’ wombs simply because their chromosomes read XX instead of XY, especially in places like India. Unfortunately, this is not just happening in places like China and India, but also in more affluent western countries among those who come from Asian cultures. Infanticide of female babies and children is also much more common, especially in poor third world countries.

Here we go with the “man being pussywhipped” trope…Some men probably are in that category, but I do not think that it applies to the male characters in Star Trek 09 or Star Trek Into Darkness.

128. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 23, 2013

#97 – “It’s where men are still men and women are still women, only that their genders are not being treated as a handicap, nor do they go with the obsolete concept of a woman’s place is in the kitchen.”

Yes, I agree. Although I also agree (and have stated in other posts on other threads here) that there should be more women who get seen and heard in Star Trek.

OT – Interesting about the “woman’s place in the kitchen” – which is, of course, for a long time where women were expected to be and remain. Now, for many women, they are also in the paid workforce. However, for a good many, much of that work is menial, lowly paid and long hours in duration, with a boss standing over her. One could say, truthfully, that for many women today, they may experience LESS autonomy than their “your place is in the kitchen” grandmothers and great-grandmothers had.

The kitchen/home was very much the woman’s domain and what she did and said went – at least, that is what my aunt and others have told me…

I do think that for many women, especially those living in lower socio-economic circumstances, this “feminism” stuff has no real meaning and is a f*cking crock. Traditional feminine roles like being a mother taking care of her own children is being undermined, in that the expectation is that she return to the paid workforce as soon as possible (which is much more often our dire economic necessity than anything else) while the children be cared for by strangers, who, of course, get paid.

How about we talk about the de-feminization of women, so that big corporations run mostly by men in expensive suits and ties can maintain their profits…

129. Captain Mateo - May 23, 2013

Thanks Kayla!

Spot on article.

Although I understand they all change uniforms when going from ship to away mission, Kirk ought to have stripped down as well. Both of them checking each other out would have been more exciting for an audience.

Sincerely, Mateo

130. geodesic17 - May 23, 2013

121.

I disagree. There are many disposable extras throughout the movie. We could think of them as recurring characters — even if they just had a few lines in the movie.

It would definitely work better on a TV Show though.

131. Amorican - May 23, 2013

“I am by no means a feminist. As a woman, I’m all for the equal treatment of women.”

Um, what?
You really should edit that out of the article.

or as Inigo Montoya said:
“I do not think it means what you think it means.”

132. Someone commenting on this article - May 23, 2013

I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I don’t know about those scenes. I will say this: I think as far as the Carol Marcus, half naked scene, it depends. I think you have to look at more than just that scene to determine whether she’s a strong female character. If she had a strong attraction to Kirk, and wasn’t just doing that because he’s a man and he’s there, then it doesn’t make her a whore or anything. Also, I wouldn’t just her based on just one scene. I wouldn’t just her whole life and personality just by one time that she takes her clothes off. I think it would be absurd to label her a dumb bimbo for the rest of her life just because of that one thing. I think she should be judged by ALL of her actions throughout the movie. It would come off as an odd behavior if she were a strong, heroic woman, and yet were just disrobing in front of him because, again, he’s a man and he’s there. But then even the noblest people can do dumb things sometimes. All in all, I’d have to see the movie and see what her actions are in the movie to get a sense of what kind of person she is, and hopefully I won’t have to wait long to see the movie.

133. Someone commenting on this article - May 23, 2013

On that Kirk/Marcus scene, it might also depend on how long Carol has had feelings for Kirk. Women don’t necessarily disrobe in front of men they’re attracted to after they’ve only had feelings for them for a short time. It all depends on the circumstances in their relationship, whatever kind of relationship that might be, that lead to that scene.

134. Karen - May 23, 2013

@121 Everlobter

Y’know, I was going to ask whether you were at all interested in a real, back and forth discussion about this issue, so that maybe you could get an inkling of where so many of us XX fans of the film are coming from.

But it’s pretty clear from that comment you’re not. Instead you want all the pain in the arse women to stfu, get back in their places, and not detract from the only real characters in the film, who are men.

Just so you know … every time you make comments like that, you make my point. I really do hope that one day you lift your head and look around you, and truly see how much of a disservice you’re doing yourself, and all the people who do espouse the ideals of Trek.

135. langdonboom - May 23, 2013

I saw it more as an attempt to inject a hint of a little romantic-comedy between Kirk and Marcus in the classic vein of It Happened One Night (“The Walls of Jericho”) with a bit of a Maxim-magazine modern twist than some gratuitous cheesecake just to see a woman in her underwear.

In that sense, the scene had a point in terms of teasing that relationship (that everybody here knows in another universe got serious enough to make a David eventually).

I suppose the full frontal underwear shot itself wasn’t strictly necessary for the scene but it did ‘raise the stakes’ for Kirk and paint the necessary picture of his interest to have her that exposed.

My two cents (is that a lot?)

136. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 23, 2013

@122. Chuck – May 23, 2013
“As I said earlier, I thoroughly enjoyed STID including every scene with Alice Eve. She is a very talented and beautiful actress and a great choice to play Carol Marcus. It was also her choice to do the scene.
Carol Marcus wanted Kirk to see her. She liked him as well. She wasn’t sincerely complaining about his looking at her and Kirk knew it. That’s why he was smiling at her. It’s the beginning of a romance and nothing for which to apologize…”

I can’t believe we saw the same movie. And I am appalled at your contention that ‘No does not mean No”.

Marcus may or may not be attracted to Kirk at that point. She probably is, he’s supposed to be ‘cute’, I guess. She certainly knows his reputation and is not going to be a ‘push over’. She is getting changed into her flightsuit while still discussing the mission with Kirk. At this stage she is mission-focussed and he is not. He can’t help himself and has to turn and stare – exactly what JJ Abrams was trying to convey about his personality at this point in his development. Marcus said to him “turn around … just turn around … I said turn around … Now!” This is to her superior officer. But in your opinion, she didn’t really mean it. Unbelievable!

137. Paul - May 23, 2013

“Uhura, who many would point to as a shining symbol of strong African-American women, isn’t without her girl power moments in the film.”

I call bullpoop. Uhura is no afri-ameri-whatever nonsense. She’s a proper AFRICAN and she’s proud of it. If you are about to use Trek to tout your postmodern carebear propaganda, at least get your Trek facts right. :-P

138. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 23, 2013

No, Red Dead Ryan – you keep missing my point…which is why you and others accused me of homoeroticism when I posted a short outline of part of my own story…It is you who doesn’t get it!

I understand where Kayla and others are coming from, but I am presenting another perspective on this whole issue, because there is another way of interpreting these issues.

Kayla has not said anything particularly new. People are, by and large, repeating what others say. This does not necessarily make what they are saying wrong, but it does not mean that it always right either.

139. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 23, 2013

@137. Paul

You are correct that Uhura is African. She has however, been an inspiration to African-Americans (both male and female) for 47 years. It was Martin Luther King Jr who persuaded Nichelle Nichols to remain on the show for that very reason.

140. Snugglepuff - May 23, 2013

She showed some skin big deal. I don’t see anybody crying foul over carrie fisher in a bikini.

141. Phil - May 23, 2013

@112. I think I’ve mentioned it before, if you need to check if something is sexist, reverse the role. If it looks ridiculous with Kirk in his BVD’s telling Captain Marcus to turn around, it’s sexist.

Oh, and I looked at the Hawkeye Initiative. Yep, the images say it all…

142. Phil - May 23, 2013

@141…and in the case of a command structure, harassment.

143. Finnegan - May 23, 2013

Sex sells… always has, always will. Someone else mentioned Magic Mike. Do you think that was popular due to the brilliant storytelling?

144. Weston - May 23, 2013

I thought it was fine… its just laying some brickwork for a future relationship between the two. Plus it’s Kirk. I think she was just trying to see how she reacted cause she likes him xD

145. Karen - May 23, 2013

@136

Word!

Here’s the thing that baffles me, on reflection. Abrams is the guy who created Alias, with Jennifer Garner. It’s fabulously pro strong women, and whenever skin is revealed it’s always with great purpose and context. Syd is a strong woman and the guys in her life admire and respect and rely on that in her. So what’s going on now, with this film, I cannot begin to fathom.

Also? I have to disagree with the notion that because Uhura is portrayed as a woman in a relationship it means she’s been diminished. She is way way more than that in these films, plus even within the context of the relationship she is strong and independent and a force to be reckoned with. At no time is she portrayed as a whiny, needy girlfriend. Even more telling is the fact that Spock clearly respects the hell out of her. She challenges him, demands he respect her pov and her feelings, and he responds.. He honours her by listening and changing, with honesty. That’s got to be the definition of a mature, equal relationship.

Sure, feminism is about, in part, women not being defined by or limited to their relationships with men. But to say that a woman in a mutually satisfying hetero relationship has surrendered her feminist cred? That’s nuts.

146. Mel - May 23, 2013

Male characters obviously vastly outnumbered female character in the latest two Star Trek movies. What annoys me especially is, that most of the few we have seen had stereotypical roles. Winona’s and Amanda’s sole purpose was being a mother and wife. Gaila was practically only seen sleeping with Kirk. And a large part of Uhura’s screen time in both movies was dedicated to being a girlfriend to one of the main characters. I was really glad that they didn’t pair Carol up in Into Darkness. But I already see it coming, that she won’t stay single in the next movie.

And we have seen four groups consisting out of people with authority in the last two movies. 1. We saw Spock in front of a Vulcan council, where he declined going to the Vulcan science academy. 2. There was the hearing after Kirk’s cheating of the Kobayashi Maru test with a lot of Admirals attending. 3. Spock going to the katric arx to rescue Vulcan’s elders. 4. The meeting of Starfleet’s higher ups after the terrorist attack. All of those four groups of people with power were overwhelmingly male and the few speaking roles went solely to men, too.

TOS is somewhat the cause of women being underrepresented among the more important characters of the Enterprise crew. But there is no excuse for all of the other characters and for stereotypical females roles.

For example why were none of the villains a women? Nero’s crew were solely male, the Klingons were all male, Khan pressured the father of the little girl instead of her mother to do the terrorist attack, then there was Carol’s father instead of her evil mother and a male security guy were confronting Scott, when Kirk and Khan were jumping to Admiral Marcus ship.

If I remember correctly, Kirk, Spock and Uhura also only took male security officers with them to Kronos.

Before the 2009 reboot I was all for giving one of the more minor TOS characters a sex change, like Sulu, Chekov or Pike to even up the numbers somewhat, which would have solved a lot of problems. Or introduces a female security chief. Such a character could have been easily used without writing special scenes for her. Away missions and fighting scenes will be in Star Trek movies so or so. I am sorry, that nothing of this has happened.

147. Teiresias' Shades - May 23, 2013

“I am by no means a feminist. As a woman, I’m all for the equal treatment of women.”

You have no idea what you’re talking about and you don’t have a clue what feminism is if you can seriously write that sentence. I am ashamed that you can call yourself a Star Trek fan and a woman.

148. Dennis Bailey - May 23, 2013

This whole controversy resulted, among other things, in Abrams showing a deleted clip of Khanberbatch showering – a clip which made its way onto the web and just about every Trek site in record time.

What this controversy has actually accomplished, quite simply, is to generate a lot of additional publicity for the movie.

Good all around.

149. Mel - May 23, 2013

@ 72. Dr. Cheis – May 23, 2013

“I can’t help but be skeptical about a poll on a website about Star Trek indicating a majority (as of my posting) think it wasn’t sexist. The stereotype suggests the users of this site will be overwhelmingly male.”

Just look here:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/trekmovie.com

Audience Demographics for Trekmovie.com
Relative to the general internet population how popular is trekmovie.com with each audience below?

The answer is in short that males are very overrepresented. Young people and people without children are also overrepresented. 79% of the site visitors are by the way from the USA.

150. geodesic17 - May 23, 2013

A lot of the criticism misses the mark. The scene made sense in the context of the movie.

The real problem is voyeurism. Carol states that she doesn’t want to be watched as she changes, yet we the audience are watching her change.

151. Dennis Bailey - May 23, 2013

#:” I am ashamed that you can call yourself a Star Trek fan and a woman.”

I’m pretty sure that the right to call oneself a woman has nothing to do with one’s ideology – little reality check, there.

152. Michael Towns - May 23, 2013

Some people look at this scene and shrug.

Some people look at this scene and are outraged because it’s “anti-feminist”.

Some people look at this scene and ….blah blah blah.

Pretty much, what you see in this scene is what you’re projecting onto it. If you’re a dour feminist, then it ticks you off. If you’re like my wife, then you chuckle and move on.

America is already going down the drain; can’t we just enjoy a summer popcorn flick while we still can?

153. martin - May 23, 2013

Actually, I can’t believe that this waited until the movie came out.
The scene was fine, but the inclusion of that shot in the trailers was awful.

But in the movie, my wife thought it was funny (and she is a borderline feminist) and it didn’t take away from Carol at all. Seeing it with our daughter, we were both more bothered by Kirk being in bed with 2 women. Old Kirk might have done that too, but it would have been implied, not shown on screen. Same with Gaela in Trek 09.

My wife also didn’t understand who Carol Marcus was (been a long time since she saw TWOK) – so she was thinking that Carol was evil when she snuck on the ship.

154. Theatre Historian - May 23, 2013

The fact that this is being debated at all is rather pointless.

Who cares if she is in her underwear, She is going out on a mission Kirk is discussing said mission with her.
Time is of the essence and she is changing from one uniform to the next, Kirk ends up catching a glimpse of her in her underwear big deal.

Its not like she is actually naked, or kirk followed her into the shuttle cause he knew he was going to see her naked.

155. Trek in a Cafe - May 23, 2013

GLAD this is being written about.

As I wrote when the trailers were released, the scene was really shot only so that she could be in the trailers this way.

After seeing the scene, it seems like of no consequence.

Which is why it’s impossible for me to imagine that the actor’s agents would agree to have her unclothed without having detailed knowledge of how that state of undress would or would not be used in advertising.

And use of Eve in her state of undress, specifically in a Star Trek film which had little to no other sexuality — absolutely and positively sexist.

I hope that was clear. In another universe, I have a proposal to write!

156. Theatre Historian - May 23, 2013

There are bathing suits out there that are more revealing than the bra and panties that Dr Marcus has on in the scene.

And again as I said they are on a mission where time is of the importance.

157. porthoses bitch - May 23, 2013

I could’ve sworn when we first saw this shot in the trailer that the camera-video did a freeze frame on Eve in her undies.

I understand the dialouges on here but…in TOS we reg.. saw the womans panties or tap pants. Voyager had 7 of 9 in her body suit, and Enterprise featured T’Pol in a catsuit every week. ( poor Hoshi).. and TNG featured Troi baring cleavage in the first season. Let’s face it Trek has always been sexist.

158. Sexy is not sexist - May 23, 2013

UGH, get over yourselves. If you’re someone who has a problem with seeing a bit of skin, do me a favour and move to Syria. They’ll agree with you there – meanwhile I’ll be enjoying life in the FREE WORLD where it’s cool to do what you want.

We’re born naked. Try not to let that keep you awake at night, losers.

159. somethoughts - May 23, 2013

#158

I agree with this post.

160. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 23, 2013

“Pretty much, what you see in this scene is what you’re projecting onto it.”
Exactly.

The fact is that it was a dumb scene. I suspect, though, that people would go completely birko if they showed the two of them walk into the shuttle and her continue the conversation while she undressed/dressed in front of him, without a bat of an eyelid, while he looked on…However, that is actually how the scene should have been done and it would NOT have constituted any kind of sexual harassment on Kirk’s part.

The hooplah is getting so pathetic.

161. Red Dead Ryan - May 23, 2013

Yeah, I still hope the scene with Carol Marcus changing as well as the scene featuring Kirk doing the catwomen get deleted.

The movie is great, but we all could do without the sexist poorno scenes.

#160.

“The hooplah is getting so pathetic.”

Your rhetoric has been pathetic for a very long time now.

162. Khan was Framed! - May 23, 2013

Ridiculous.

The women were written as strong Starfleet officers, anything else people read into it is there own interpretation, not the facts of the script.

There were no moments in which women were diminished in the entire film.

Both Uhura & Marcus played crucial roles in the outcome of events & throughout the movie we see diverse examples of women in the future, from Security Officers to Vixens.

If anything, this film celebrates female equality in the same manor the source material always did.

163. Karen - May 23, 2013

@158

You seem to be deliberately missing the point. She asked him to respect her privacy. He ignored her. That sends a really bad message, and the message is doubly bad when men then tell women to shut up for being disturbed by it. It’s also bad when men say, well she’s hot, so that makes it okay. It’s not okay. In that scene, the nudity was used not to further the story or make some relevant plot point, it was to heat up the male viewers. The objections are not about trying to stop nudity in film. In the right context, that can be brilliant and valid and a rich part of the overall story. This wasn’t one of those times.

And the fact that you’d tell women who object to go live in Syria, a country where violence against women is rife, where women’s lives are in danger if they dare speak up for themselves?

How more clueless and offensive could you possibly be?

164. Karen - May 23, 2013

@158

Furthermore, do you not see that whenever someone like you tells women to stfu when they express an opinion or a concern, all you do is confirm everything we’ve been saying about the sexism that’s rife around us?

Has it never once occurred to you to stop and think about a different pov, to even try and comprehend what some people are feeling, and why they might be feeling and how maybe, just maybe, that women have experienced some things in this world that you haven’t?

165. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - May 23, 2013

@163. That was not nudity.

166. Schiefy - May 23, 2013

NOTE: Those who point to Gene Roddenberry’s more noble intentions for women in the Trek universe should remember that shortly after TOS he wrote and produced a little film called “Pretty Maids All in a Row”–hardly his most enlightened work on the sexes.

Just saying.

167. KHAAAN the weasel - May 23, 2013

You know, I was actually wondering about an entirely different point concerning that scene (apart from it being completely gratuitous also in my eyes) :
I haven’t seen anyone mention it before, but didn’t those shuttle-type uniforms actually look like they were supposed to be worn OVER the normal uniform tunics?
Is it only me or did those little wedge-shaped bits indicating the respective division colors actually look like they were made from transparent material and you could simply see the standard tunics through them? So at the end of the day, the scene wasn’t only unnecessary but it didn’t even adhere to the film’s internal logic concerning costumes…

168. Trekkiegal63 - May 23, 2013

#146. Mel:

What a wonderful post! Very well said. And I agree entirely. Adding a female to the security team would have been great. There are definitely hundreds of ways a larger female presence could have been added to this film without difficulty. *sigh*

And a female villain, definitely an interesting idea… first ep to come to mind was “The Enterprise Incident”. ;)

Karen, in response to literally ALL of your posts – just so you know, you are amazing.

169. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 23, 2013

A man sharing a bed with two consenting adult females is sexist pournography? Really? There is no way that scene should be deleted. It should be expanded upon and we should learn these ladies’ names.

170. barney - May 24, 2013

Seen the film twice now and I don’t think it Is fair to call Uhura or Carol sexist. there is a certain dialogue that Spock says about uhura when they go the Klingon home world and I believe is.

”if you interfere you will bring the wrath of Lt Uhura”

Since the S/U romance is a subplot . I don’t exactly know what Spock ‘s means although I have a little idea.

However I think it says a lot about her character If a stoic guy like Spock gets a little afraid of her when she is angry.

To me that shows that she is not entirely weak, she does have a strong personality. its is just subtle.

171. The Sisko - May 24, 2013

It may have been gratuitous, and maybe Kirk didn’t listen. But, Kirk turned away…a little embarrassed almost. Usually he would have had the Mojo flowing. I think it showed there was a respect there. Like maybe in the future they could be………

172. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 24, 2013

I want to see more women in Star Trek doing all kinds of stuff, whether it be what is now considered traditional or other.

I actually have suggested on this site that they make Lt Uhura communications and security officer. This occurred in TNG where first Lt Tasha Yar, and then Lt Wolf held these two positions simultaneously.

This is an alternate universe where some things could happen faster than in the prime universe. This could be one example. Lt Uhura, I see, as something of a troubleshooter anyway. She needs a title of her own perhaps – a very cool and important one. This could happen in the next movie.

When I first read that this actress Alice Eve had been cast, no one had any idea who she would play, although most were guessing that she would be either Carol Marcus or Elizabeth Dehner(?). I thought that she might be playing a new character.

I put forward an idea that she could be a temporary replacement for Spock who had decided to go on a sabbatical to help with the resettlement and building of new Vulcan…in other words, she would play ship’s first officer. She was a highly trained Starfleet Temp, if you like, who could virtually go anywhere, doing whatever job needed doing. I also had a little dialogue going where she did not agree with Kirk on a decision he made and ends up saying “Screw you” to which he automatically replies…

I guess it would not have been very professional of her, nor his reply. Gosh, everything/everyone seem so PC. It is quite suffocating in some ways.

173. pauln6 - May 24, 2013

I’m astonished that 50% of the poll says Star Trek is not sexist – absolutely astonished. Take away Kirk and Spock and look at the male characters you have left. Take away Carol and Uhura and look at the women you have left. And this is in a franchise where the sexes are supposed to be equal.

I understand that taking characters from TOS leaves you with an imbalance of male and female characters in the main cast but as pointed out above, they keep adding in the same imbalance in the supporting cast! They had 3 recurring female characters to work with and instead of updating them all with a modern twist, they dropped two of them and aged another one of the men to include him instead and then in STiD they struggled to find a use for him in any way that made sense. If Rand had been featured I can think of about a dozen ways that she could have been used that would have been entirely consistent with her character and would not have changed the plot at all.

The new character they’ve introduced has been introduced as a potential love interest and the underwear scene was intended to set that up. Be thankful – a larger part of her role could well have been subverted to that as well.

In ST09 we had Pike but his female first officer? Replaced by a man. We have the Vulcan High Council but their female leader? Replaced by a man. Nero mourns his dead wife. Admiral Marcus could have been Carol’s mother without changing anything in the plot. In ST09 and STiD we have a noticeable imbalance in the Vulcan science council, the Vulcan high council, Starfleet Academy, and in STiD we have the meeting of the top brass. I don’t recall seeing female secuirty guards in either movie either. Certainly Kirk was taken down by men in ST09 and Harrison was guarded by men in STiD. Robau’s crew, Nero’s crew, and Marcus’ crew are almost exclusively male (at least in speaking roles) and even the alien in Robau’s crew that was played by a woman was listed as a male!. All of Pike’s senior officers that we saw were men. Does anybody still seriously think that Star Trek isn’t sexist? All they do is use women as wives, mothers, and girlfriends, and give us one or two token high profile women to obscure the imbalance and 50% of people have fallen for it!

I was very vocal that Chapel and Rand should be included. Chapel was a biologist – there was no real need to recast her a a subordinate nurse but they did it anyway, keeping her under McCoy’s thumb and then transferred her off the ship altogether. Janice Rand could have been Pike’s yeoman, inherited by Kirk. She could be security trained, doubling as back-up in tough situations. She could have been part of the crew who went to the Narada (with Uhura who, as in this film, was qualified to speak the language so that both Kirk and Spock could have split into teams that could speak Romulan) and Qo’onos, giving us 2 out of 5 instead of 1 out of 5. She could have been sent to Delta Vega as a security escort for Kirk in ST09 if they had organised that scene in a way that made more sense.

The writers and casting people have proven to be an EPIC fail as far as equality goes. And exactly the same criticism was levelled against them in the last movie and they failed COMPLETELY to take any notice in the sequel.

Yes this franchise is definitely sexist. :(

174. Jenn Marshall - May 24, 2013

WOAH. Newsflash: if you’re for the equal treatment of women, then you’re a feminist. It’s not a bad word.

175. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 24, 2013

@173. pauln6 – May 24, 2013
“I’m astonished that 50% of the poll says Star Trek is not sexist – absolutely astonished.”

Unfortunately, I’m not astonished. You wrote a very thoughtful post, by the way, and I agree with everything you said, bar your first sentence.

I’m surprised that the poll is actually coming anywhere near 50-50 on this issue. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of posters on this site are male. Many males, and some females, are simply blind to sexism. If someone complains then they are labelled ‘radical feminists’ or similar, told to shut up or to ‘go live in Syria’… You just have to read the posts in this thread and the ‘deleted Cumberbatch scene’ thread, to see some truly disturbing attitudes.

As a female trekkie for nigh on 47 years, I love my Star Trek, and I know the sexism is there but mostly I don’t get too upset by it. This doesn’t mean the sexism is OK, it means I have been desensitized to an extent, and that is NOT a good thing. A useful analogy is that of the frog in the pan of heating water – if the frog were thrown into the hot water it would try to get out; but if the water heats up slowly then the frog doesn’t notice – by the way I have no idea whether the analogy is factual or not and am not experimenting with a frog to find out ;-)

TOS was a product of its time, and was progressive in some areas and not in others. I can accept that. The later series handle the situation generally better than TOS, but still couldn’t resist putting in eye-candy for the male adolescents – 7of9 and T’Pol. However, these characters were strong characters and not ‘bimbos’.

However, I do expect better from contemporary Star Trek, but I’m not optimistic I’ll get it any time soon.

Despite this, I do still love ST09 & STID.

176. Karen - May 24, 2013

@165

You’re right. I wasn’t precise in my language. Semi-nudity is more accurate.

@168 Trekkiegal

Blush. Thank you. But … hmm … my problem with the female commander in Enterprise Incident is that she used sex to bring down the guy. Which kinda plays into gender stereotypes, I think. Otherwise, yes. Basically, can we please just wake up and notice the other half of the human race now????

177. Spock Jr. - May 24, 2013

Cool if Kirk hadn’t turned around, but seen her in a reflection and been like, well, what do I do now?! And have a good ‘ol gawp.

Perfect – problem solved.

178. Rg - May 24, 2013

What happened, Star Trek? The franchise that had the first multi-racial kiss on TV and was a pioneer of diversity in casting has now sold out to cheap nudity for equally cheap thrills.

At least they admitted it I guess.

179. Cygnus-X1 - May 24, 2013

Kayla,

I agree that the Dr. Marcus/underwear scene was poorly constructed, but in this movie that is really par for the course. Having a stunningly hot actress in her undies for the benefit of the audience was one of the LEAST offensive plot holes in this movie. They way they killed off one of the best characters—certainly an audience favorite—Capt. Pike, was far more offensive. Let us revisit what happened:

A top Star Fleet Admiral, Marcus, revives a genetically-engineered superhuman, Khan, for the sole purpose of exploiting his high intellect to develop advanced weapons technology to defend against Klingons and any other aliens who might pose a threat to Earth, but he doesn’t bother installing bullet-proof glass or a radar to detect a primitive, errant aircraft flying directly at Star Fleet HQ, arguably the most important location on Earth, where the top brass, arguably the most important people on Earth, are all gathered for a crisis meeting. And, thus, the bullets from the undetected primitive aircraft fly right through the windows of the Star Fleet HQ top-level meeting room like knives through warm butter, killing one of the best characters in the Trek reboot in order to elicit an emotional response from the audience, invest them in the story and give Kirk a strong motive to go get the bad guy.

THAT is offensive.

The writers shamelessly exploiting the audience’s feelings about what is widely regarded as the best Trek film (TWOK) and trying to ride its coattails to box-office success — THAT is offensive.

Cutting the movie together at a deliberately frenetic pace in order to create tension in the audience where the deficient writing and directing have failed to do so within the context of the story — THAT is offensive.

A beautiful woman in her undies for a couple of seconds?

Eh.

Why don’t you write an article about all of the plot holes in this movie?

There’s a lot more material there to work with. badump.

180. Karen - May 24, 2013

@177

It’s really really not about her being in her undies. It’s about why she’s in them, and why we’re shown that she’s in them, and how we’re shown it, and why her request not to be looked at is disregarded by a male character and supposed to be acceptable.

He’s a compare and contrast. Have a look at the shower scene in Will Smith’s film I, Robot. The character is entirely nude, standing in his bathtub taking a shower. There’s no shower curtain. He is seen nearly full figure, in profile, and posed in such a way that his thigh and arm obscure his genitals. The camera is set at a 90 degree angle to the subject, and positioned as though the viewer is standing in the doorway to the bathroom. The lighting is clear and flat. The ultimate effect is that of a photograph of a marble statue a la Michelangelo’s David. Will Smith’s physique is fabulous, he could have posed for Michelangelo. It’s a very still and quiet moment, introspective. He is alone. We, the audience, are watching him, but nobody else is. His privacy is intact. Above all else, there is no overtly sexualised overtone to the shot. As I say, it has all the majesty and aesthetic beauty of something in the Louvre.

The director of the film is male.

Then look at the Carol Marcus scene, how she is posed (displaying herself) , how she’s lit (sexy) , where the camera is positioned, (up her body, emphasising her pushed up breasts) how the camera in that moment is standing in for Kirk, making us, the audience, Kirk, making us in that moment a heterosexual male. She has been totally sexualised, objectified, made an object of ogling, of titilation.

Above all, look at the differences in context. Will Smith is taking a shower. His nudity is intrinsic to the moment, it’s the very point of the shot. Now maybe the external reality is that it was nothing but a vanity shot for the actor. Or maybe it’s a visual essay on the perfection of the human form as opposed to the metal sterility of the robots. I don’t know. That’s a discussion for a thesis on I Robot. The point is, despite the fact that he’s heart poundingly beautiful in that visual image, he’s not naked for no reason. And he is not being sexually objectified. He’s been rendered into a work of art.

Whereas within the context of the shuttle craft scene, there is no possible reason or justification for her semi-nudity other than the chance to get Alice Eve in her underwear. That’s why the scene is an epic fail, and that’s why it has sweet fanny addams all to do with Kirk in his underpants in bed after sex (and really, he had sex with his pants on, or he made sure to put them on again after? Really?) or even Khan taking a shower. The guy was dirty and sweaty after all that mayhem with the Klingons.

And you know what? Even if the Khan scene was a sexual objectification scene, at the end of the day Abrams chose to titilate the boys instead of the girls. So we get short changed again! And before I get yelled at for that, bear in mind that the underlying implications of a women admiring a man’s body and a man admiring a woman’s (especially given the consent issue for Eve vs what was most likely a solo shower for Khan) are very very different.

181. Michael Towns - May 24, 2013

Keachick,

I pretty much agree with just about everything you say. We must be clones from an alternate timeline.

182. Mel - May 24, 2013

# 177

Pike also had to die, because they needed a way to give Kirk back the captaincy of the Enterprise. They wanted to address the critique after the first movie of Kirk’s fast rise to captain. So they downgraded him, but needed a way to reverse it back.

183. Starfleet Sideburns - May 24, 2013

@177 Cygnus-X1: Speaking about plot holes… http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

184. Matt - May 24, 2013

In the last screenshot you can see Kirk’s bulge because he’s wearing skintight clothing. Isn’t that gratuitous also?

Sex sells, this movie had plenty of eye candy for both men and women. Go watch GI Jane if you want to see a “girl power” movie.

185. reni - May 24, 2013

Personally I think this scene is getting picked apart is because it’s so glaringly obvious to be a fanservice moment. It’s really the only one of its kind in this film.

Sure you can use the counterarguments that Kirk and Khan were also nude, but if you take a closer look at the perspective of the camera and how it directs the audience eyes, you can see a difference.

Khan and Kirk’s ‘nude’ shots had the audience looking at the character’s eye/conversation level. Marcus’ underwear shot was below eye level, straight on her torso, forcing the audience to check her out before you moved to her face.

Dialog and character development aside, these composition choices subtly cue the audience how to view the shots. The choice made to have the camera capture the characters this way, be it eye/conversation level or torso level, really speaks for itself.

186. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 24, 2013

@181. Matt

“In the last screenshot you can see Kirk’s bulge because he’s wearing skintight clothing. Isn’t that gratuitous also? ”

Actually, no it isn’t. There is a good reason Kirk, McCoy, Sulu & Uhura are in wetsuits on the bridge at that point. They are doing their jobs. No one is oggling them. There is no power differential in play. And in case you are wondering, the scenes were digitally altered to preserve the actors’ dignity. Apparently, the wetsuits were actually very revealing in real life.

This is the point so many of you are failing to get. Most of us unhappy with the Marcus underwear scene are not unhappy she is in her undies; we are unhappy that she is shown being oggled by Kirk (her fully clothed superior officer) – and by the camera – for no good reason, except to titillate the audience. It is context that makes it gratuitious, not the fact she is only in underwear.

If the scene showed, for instance both Marcus and Kirk in a state of undress, and discussing the mission as part of their job at that point, it is likely most of us who thought the actual scene was gratuitious would not think this one was.

There are undoubtedly those who object to nudity or semi-nudity under any circumstances, but that is not what most of us who have complained about this scene are complaining about. Context is everything. If this had been a scene such as, for example, showing Spock and Uhura lying semi clothed or even unclothed in bed together when red alert sounds or they are otherwise unexpectedly called to the bridge, I doubt most of us ‘complainers’ would have batted an eyelid.

187. Kevin Browning - May 24, 2013

Carol Marcus is a beautiful and smart woman….PH.D applied Physics…disabled torpedo and saved Bones life…junior science officer on the flagship…And kept Kirk’s hands off of her and did not fall into his charm AKA “the reputation” or “just another woman.” (until Star Trek III)

However, it was inappropriate for a senior officer to act like that towards a junior officer. However, this is a story of Kirk learning what it takes to sit in the chair and growing as a leader. And lets face it, Kirk was immature, arrogant, and unprofessional. So, if you want to put the scene in “context of Kirk growing to be a captain, it fits.

I have no problem with the scene. But I like the fact that this Star Trek has sparked debate on women’s issues, 9/11, terrorism. What a Great Movie!!! Thanks to JJ Abrams and team.

188. Patrick Shirley, formerly Teiresias' Shades - May 24, 2013

#151 Women support other women. They don’t buy in to the American Taliban ideology of no attractive women anywhere ever. A woman who is not a feminist or at least is not in effect a feminist is not a real woman. I use that term the way someone might say “If you beat your wife, you’re not a real man.” Obviously he’s still genetically male, he’s just betrayed the concept of manhood.

189. FLT ADM WILLIAM J KING OF THE STARSHIP GRACE - May 24, 2013

GET OVER IT STAR TREK HAS DONE IT FOR YEARS EVERYONE COMPLAINED ABOUT SEVEN OF NINE THEYVE HAD THAT SINCE THE ORIGINALS SUSAN OLIVER SO GET OVER IT THERES BEEN STUFF IN HOLLYWOOD THAT MAKES THAT SCENE TAME AND I AM PROUD OF MY STAR TREK ACTORS THEY SEEM TO KEEP OUT OF TABLOIDS THEY ARE NOT LIKE TOM CRUZE OR J LO!!

190. Trekkiegal63 - May 24, 2013

#175. Karen:

But … hmm … my problem with the female commander in Enterprise Incident is that she used sex to bring down the guy. Which kinda plays into gender stereotypes, I think.

Couldn’t agree with you more. The use of sex as a means to manipulate part would have to undergo revision. But the espionage theme is always interesting. Wouldn’t mind seeing a crafty, intelligent female villian whose talents lie within tactics – much in the way that Kirk’s talents lie within tactics – go head to head with him (that the Duras sisters from Generations needed Soran to do their thinking for them always rubbed me the wrong way).

191. Trekkiegal63 - May 24, 2013

#186. FLT ADM WILLIAM J KING OF THE STARSHIP GRACE:

Ever here of the fallacy of logic called the ‘historians fallacy’? It’s meaning is this:

The historian’s fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.

… think about it.

192. Allenburch - May 24, 2013

I LOVE ALICE EVE

193. pauln6 - May 24, 2013

@ 186 FLT ADM WILLIAM J KING OF THE STARSHIP GRACE – May 24, 2013

I’d get over it if, you know, they stopped doing it. ;P

194. Cygnus-X1 - May 24, 2013

179. Mel – May 24, 2013

—Pike also had to die, because they needed a way to give Kirk back the captaincy of the Enterprise. They wanted to address the critique after the first movie of Kirk’s fast rise to captain. So they downgraded him, but needed a way to reverse it back.—

Also true. And that’s another thing that bothered me. They downgrade Kirk in order to address his immaturity, and then immediately upgrade him right back because the character’s name is “Captain Kirk” and not “Commander Kirk.” With all of the canon that they’ve thrown by the wayside in their two movies, this is one deviation that actually would have been meaningful… which I suppose is why these puddle-deep writers had to undo it as quickly as possible.

195. steve - May 24, 2013

The problem wasn’t showing her in her undies. The problem was that the entire character of Carol Marcus was so underdeveloped and so un-utilized. Just what does she actually DO in the movie? She has no relevant dialogue, and virtually no relevant action, other than the somewhat ludicrous scene of disarming the torpedo and slapping her Dad in the face. (Her scream at seeing her Dad’s head crushed was pretty awesome though.)

This was really pointed out even more in her appearance on Conan this week, with the clip she brought, of her boarding the shuttle with Kirk and Spock. She hardly has any dialogue, and is just there to set up an amusing exchange between Kirk and Spock.

Just one of the many problems with STID.

196. Cygnus-X1 - May 24, 2013

180. Starfleet Sideburns – May 24, 2013

—@177 Cygnus-X1: Speaking about plot holes… http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844—

Great review.

Another thing that I left out is how the frenetic editing of the film is meant to keep us distracted from all of the plot holes and how none of the characters’ motivations really make sense. The actors did a good enough job, particularly B. Cumberbatch being menacing, that they did create tension in certain places within the context of the story which JJ did manage to capture before rushing off to the next action sequence. But they needed the frenetic pace to distract us from the myriad plot holes in the story. It’s like the writers were trying to write a story composed entirely of plot twists, but without a solid plot underlying them.

197. I am not Herbert (retired) - May 24, 2013

OF COURSE it’s gratuitous and sexist! d’uh… =(

…this trio of HACK writers turned out a real lazy PIECE OF SHYT… =(

198. I am not Herbert (retired) - May 24, 2013

… maybe BobOrci should layoff of the “purple drank”… LOL! =D

199. geodesic17 - May 24, 2013

Now that Pike is dead, Kirk should report to a female admiral.

200. Cygnus-X1 - May 24, 2013

180. Karen – May 24, 2013

—…at the end of the day Abrams chose to titilate the boys instead of the girls. So we get short changed again!—

This is what the REAL issue is.

My answer is go watch a James Bond movie with Daniel Craig where he’s scantily clad to appeal to the women in the audience. Anything beyond that I think is a personal issue and not really related to the movie.

I mean, for crying out loud, compare that two second scene in STID with EVERY EPISODE of TOS. That’s the nature of the character James T. Kirk. And, look, I could do without seeing Chris Pine in his undies in these two movies, but I’m not wanting to deprive you of the pleasure. I didn’t see “I Robot” but your description of the Will Smith shower scene seems much more distracting than the two seconds of Alice Eve in her undies. What do I need to see Will Smith naked for? There’s absolutely nothing in it for me; it’s all for you ladies. So just try and be understanding about it. Enjoy the shirtless boys, and we fellas will enjoy the shirtless girls.

201. Jovius the Romulan - May 24, 2013

Mel, Re: your post 146 — You and I are definitely on the same wavelength. I thought the same. Why couldn’t Hendorff/”Cupcake” be accompanied by a female security officer? Hell, they could have cast the awesome Deltan (?) woman from the bridge. She looked like a tough cookie to me. Furthermore, weren’t there a decent amount of Klingon women in the military by TNG? Would have been nice to see a few mixed in on Q’onoS. Also agree Adm. Marcus played by a woman (Helen Mirren, for example, has plenty of gravitas for it and would have explained Carol’s accent) would have been a great casting decision. I can count on one hand how many female admirals we’ve seen total in all of Star Trek, and zero that were head of Starfleet at that.

Trekkiegal63: You are doing a great job of shooting down all the sexism here. Thanks for that. We need to get in touch one of these days.

202. Jovius the Romulan - May 24, 2013

199: Totally! I’d welcome it. Kirk hasn’t had to deal with a female superior officer yet.

203. pauln6 - May 24, 2013

I don’t have a major issue with the undies scene: it was brief (no pun intended) and foreshadowed their possible liaison and there were other far more irritating things in the movies. I think focusing on whether that one scene was acceptable or not is a distraction from their wider failing.

A female admiral would be a good start but if she’s another token female it may not make much of a difference overall. What they should do is go through the script before casting and, unless there is a particular reason why one gender is required (although even parents could be of a single gender I suppose) determine the characters’ genders randomly.

204. Karen - May 24, 2013

@200 Cygnus

Really? You can’t see the difference between Bond walking out of the surf in his swimming trunks and the Marcus stripping down scene with Kirk? Really?

It is not about the showing of the skin. It is not about the chance for either gender being able to appreciate a great physique. I am all for a moment here and there to appreciate a great physique and at no time do I or would I advocate the ending of that in film or art in general.

But!

I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but let me say it one more time. This is not about skin, it is about consent and the objectification of a female character. There was no valid reason for her to strip down in that scene. The entire scene was about the torpedoes. It was a plot point, push the narrative along scene. If they’d decided to put those two in bed together and there was skin, no problem. But her stripping down served *no other purpose* than to reduce her to a pair of tits for the edification of the male audience. As bad is the fact that she asked him not to look and he looked anyway, because he wanted to. So what he wanted was more important than what she wanted. Which is the attitude that lies at the heart of most violence against women. Which is why so many women are disturbed by it. You think it’s harmless because it’s not something you ever have to think about or be afraid of. But that doesn’t make it not real and it doesn’t make it irrelevant.

I confess freely, it really distresses me when I hear so many men say they just don’t care about something that affects so many women in such a profound way. Is it true? Do you really not care? Does it really not matter to you? When I and so many other women here and around the web at the moment express their dismay at the implications of that scene, and what it means in a wider cultural context, are you so lacking in any kind of empathy for another human being that you can truly say, Who cares so shut up?

205. Karen - May 24, 2013

@203 Pauln6

I get what you’re saying, but truly, I think it’s just points along a continuum. There’s a terribly schizo thing happening with this team of film makers, because in one breath they’re giving us a strong female character in Uhura and the next they’re falling back into a default male dominated worldview.

All I can hope for is that between now and the next one, assuming there is a next one, that they take a moment to step back and look at these issues. The problem is that it can really look and feel like a free for all pile on, which achieves little but knee jerk defensiveness. The trick is to point out the bits they didn’t do very well, or didn’t think enough about, without making it personal and accuse the Trek team of being bad people. I don’t think they’re bad, I just think that in some areas they are spectacularly clueless and lacking introspection and objective analysis.

206. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 24, 2013

#181 – “I pretty much agree with just about everything you say. We must be clones from an alternate timeline.”

I am not sure if you were in genuine agreement and if this was a putdown.

207. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 24, 2013

“Khan and Kirk’s ‘nude’ shots had the audience looking at the character’s eye/conversation level. Marcus’ underwear shot was below eye level, straight on her torso, forcing the audience to check her out before you moved to her face.”

Yes, that was what was wrong with the Carol Marcus underwear shot. I don’t know why they filmed it that way. Surely, the producers would have known that it would start a huge debate on what constitutes sexism, sexual objectification et al.

Some people have complained that these film iterations are not “real” Star Trek. The fact that both Abrams’ films have given rise to so much debate, questions, discussion just prove that this is indeed Star Trek!

208. Karen - May 24, 2013

@206 Keachick

The fact that Abrams framed it that way in the first place says to me he never bothered to consider it at all. He went to his default place, the same default place that has not a single female character in any position of authority.

Sadly.

209. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 24, 2013

What people are missing in all of this is that Kirk did turn around after being asked a second time and stayed turned around.

Yes, the implications are not good – that when a woman asks a man to turn around (even if he does not know why he needs to), he should respect her wishes and remained turned around until she says otherwise.

However, this is not what happened. Kirk did turn around and was somewhat (pleasantly) surprised at what he saw. Carol repeated her command and he complied. That is the point of the scene – that a woman can ask something of a person, a man and if he does not comply, she can ask again, insist, and he will comply, because he realizes that he must, that it is not right that he shouldn’t comply with the request and is inappropriate and disrespectful of him to repeat his first mistake, as in turn around yet again. Kirk did not ignore her request, once he knew why she had asked him to turn around.

This was about human beings learning to explain boundaries and having them respected. The scene accomplished that.

210. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 24, 2013

@195 Steve

She disarmed a torpedo, so she did do something. She also tried, unsuccessfully, to get her father to stop what he was doing.

My issue with the scene also wasn’t her in her underwear. My issue was the fact that she was posing for the camera in the shot. I’ve never, and I’ve never seen anyone, change clothes like that, like they are waiting for someone to turn around and take a good look. That’s just my opinion, though.

To JJ’s credit, he did say that perhaps he didn’t get the editing right on this.

211. J.S. - May 24, 2013

I can’t believe people are making a big deal about this. Its a movie! Its fictional! This does not make or break any one male or female in the real world. It was a couple of seconds of comedy relief to poke fun at Krik’s character. No one thought less of her character for that scene, except people that feel threatened by some one showing some skin.

And making a big deal about more men being at the round table at star fleet command? Really? Again its a movie, any ways most all of them died when the room was attacked remember? If more women where at the table then wouldn’t it be sexist because women where victims of violence?

I’m a guy and would not mind if every movie had guys in their underwear would not make me feel threatened as a man one bit. Although I have a feeling that women would start complaining that men where being honored for their bodies and how unfair it was that women where not.

212. Phil - May 24, 2013

@208. What you are missing is that in his position as commander, he should not have been looking in the first place. Present proof that Kirk also watches Scotty and Spock change, then you may have a point.

213. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 24, 2013

I don’t recall that Carol actually explained to Kirk what she was doing. She just told him to turn around.

If the story made real sense in this respect, Kirk would not have been on the shuttlecraft in the first place and he would know why as well.

214. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 24, 2013

The other problem I have with your viewpoint is that you keep going on about how Kirk is her superior officer. What the hell has that got to do with anything? Are you inferring that if they were both Lieutenants (at the same command grade) that it would be OK for him to turn around, when she had asked him not to?

This is about one person being clear about her boundaries, so that the other can properly respect them and would not question the need to comply with such requests.

Need to have personal privacy (however an individual may define that) respected and the ability to be able give consent to anything of a sexual nature or not TRANSCEND any hierarchical, chain of command situation. This is what needs to be understood. Kirk showed that he understood and complied.

215. Karen - May 24, 2013

@210 JS

Yes. You’re a guy. You never ever have to think about this kind of stuff or live with the consequences of this kind of stuff, so of course you don’t think about it and can even dismiss it as women being irritating.

But can you for one moment stop and think that maybe, just maybe, that because we as women do have to live with this crap, then we might know what we’re talking about? Or are you really going to sit there and say that because you’ve never experienced it, never have to worry about it, that it doesn’t exist?

216. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 24, 2013

^Great points, Karen. And I’d just like to add:

“I’m a guy and would not mind if every movie had guys in their underwear would not make me feel threatened as a man one bit. Although I have a feeling that women would start complaining that men where being honored for their bodies and how unfair it was that women where not.”

Well, J.S., I’ve been waiting on a lean Spock being honored for his body as well as his intellect for a while now. If that’s supposed to be offensive, then offend me, lol.

217. reni - May 24, 2013

I have to disagree with you, JS (210). Gender portrayals in film does impact real world treatment for men and women.

218. Michael Towns - May 24, 2013

@Keachick

“I am not sure if you were in genuine agreement and if this was a putdown.”

No, I was being sincere, no sarcasm intended or implied!

219. Karen - May 24, 2013

@215 S/U Admirer and @216 Reni

See, this is what I find genuinely — and perhaps naievely – shocking.

I get that for a lot of guys, this kind of thing is a bit of a slap in the face. Generally speaking they don’t have to think about this crap and I’d say as a rule they never talk about it.

But now it’s being talked about, it’s being raised, it can’t be ignored … and the overwhelming male response here is to tell the pesky wimminz to STFU with their whinging? It doesn’t occur to them to stop and think hmm, I never thought of things like that, so how about I adjust my perspective?

Are we raising multiple generations of men so entrenched in their privilege, so blind to everything but the expectation of their immediate gratification and absolute domination of any conversation, that they’ve lost the ability to empathise with other people?

Because … damn.

220. tjbw - May 24, 2013

1. Nyota Uhura is not an American.
2. She is from the United States of Africa.
3. African American and Black are not interchangeable descriptions.
4. And besides, it goes against EVERYTHING that Star Trek stands for to say that Uhura is “a shining symbol of strong African-American women” because don’t all of the crew inspire everyone? Isn’t that the vision?
5. But seriously, she’s not American. Don’t be lazy.

221. ObsessiveStarTrekFans - May 24, 2013

OK, people, here’s a comparison piece for STID vs FF6 that I found rather fascinating, and very on point.

http://www.slashfilm.com/what-fast-furious-6-could-teach-star-trek-into-darkness-about-half-naked-women/

It’s final statement:
“…Instead, the franchise reputed for devotion to progressive, egalitarian politics is the one leaving a bad taste in female fans’ mouths. Lucky for them, there’s Fast & Furious 6 waiting one theater over with open arms.”

IT’S ALL ABOUT CONTEXT!

222. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 24, 2013

@Karen

From what I’ve read, a lot of men and some women at the bbs seem to think it’s not an issue either. I can understand not seeing an issue with a gratuitous shot if it’s not glaringly gratuitous, or even recognizing that it’s very gratuitous and saying that the view was still enjoyed, but dismissing someone’s concerns, especially if they are more likely to be in that situation, or if they have been, doesn’t seem right to me. That’s my take on it.

Moreso than the shot, I find the spinach diet she went on to lose weight to be more disturbing tbh.

223. Karen - May 24, 2013

@221– yes.

And spinach diet? Really?

Okaaay … *g*

@219 tbjw

You’re quite right on those points. The tricky bit comes with the intersect between character, actress and culture.

224. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 24, 2013

@ObsessiveSTF

Oh gosh. I haven’t even read the article yet, but I said the whole context thing to somebody. They claimed that anybody that had an issue with Eve’s partial nudity must never have been to a beach of pool. Then I was told that because a bikini and panties look the same way, it’s not partial nudity. I replied back that this wasn’t a beach or a pool. Carol and Kirk were both at work, on duty, and so this was a professional environment with a dress code.

Someone in a professional environment would not wear a bikini and panties, wouldn’t think of it, so don’t try to say that it’s okay for Kirk to just gawk at her here because she’s not supposed to be on display. And once again, her posing like she was on display was problematic to me, but I think I’ve said enough.

225. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 24, 2013

@Karen

Yup. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2319856/Star-Trek-actress-Alice-Eve-admits-eating-SPINACH-weeks.html

226. Phil - May 24, 2013

@213. Two words, Rose. Command Structure. Look it up, and educate yourself. It’s not that hard to figure out….

227. Phil - May 24, 2013

@223. The people defending this continue to insist that context is not relevant, and they could not be more wrong. Bikini’s and Speedo’s are perfectly acceptable on a beach…hell, if it’s clothing optional, that’s acceptable, too. Not in the boardroom, though, or in a command structure. It’s a sad state of affairs when the POTUS has to implore Naval Academy graduates that sexual assault and harassment is wrong and needs to end….enough said.

228. Phil - May 24, 2013

@220. Good comparison.

229. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 24, 2013

““Last time, Zoe needed to wear underwear, and this time it was Alice Eve’s turn,” the costume designer explained to the Guardian. “You know, it’s a rather large male fanbase, and JJ wanted to appeal to that.”

So, is that why Alice had to seemingly starve herself and Zachary is kind of fat in the film? I wasn’t going to bring it up but the movie looked like he ate her food or something, like the food she should have been eating but couldn’t. Zachary is not naturally as hefty as he was in the film, and so I do wonder what was going on there. Hmm…

@#226 Phil

Bravo! I could not agree more. :-)

230. WillH85 - May 24, 2013

In today’s world of extreme political correctness everything’s considering sexist and an attack on women. But I guess some people have to find trivial things to pick fights over so they don’t pay attention to all of the things that are really messed up in the world.

231. Cygnus-X1 - May 24, 2013

204. Karen – May 24, 2013

Karen,

You seem like a nice person, so please don’t take what I’m about to say as some kind of disrespect or disparagement of you personally, or of women generally. The fact is that I love women and wouldn’t want to live without them. HOWEVER…

—I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but let me say it one more time. This is not about skin, it is about consent and the objectification of a female character. There was no valid reason for her to strip down in that scene.—

For YOU, that’s what it’s about. But perhaps you’ve noticed the noticeable dearth of males complaining about having seen the gorgeous Alice Eve in her undies, if only for a few precious seconds, without her character’s “consent.”

But, Karen. Why would that be? Are we to infer the total absence of outrage from men about this (non)issue to mean that we are all misogynistic mashers who would just as soon trample a woman under foot and use her for whatever purposes might appeal to our basest instincts? I mean, by your reasoning, all of us men must be rather bad people, wouldn’t you agree?

Or maybe we just like seeing hot women in their undies, so long as they’re not “really” being hurt by it; and, in our opinion (if I may here speak for my gender), she wasn’t.

Could the scene have been better constructed? Obviously, as I said before. And it would have been sexier and more titillating to see Alice Eve in her undies consequent to good writing rather than to poor writing. But the issue for me is precisely that—the writing—not some overblown, perceived misogynistic transgression perpetrated upon all women as represented by Jim Kirk and Carol Marcus in those two seconds. He loves women and their boobies. Just as we all do (the straight among us, obviously).

Is it worth sneaking a peak if it means trumping what a woman wants with what we want, if there’s no real harm done? If you don’t understand that the answer to this question is an instant, unhesitating and unwavering “OF COURSE!” followed by, “depending upon the situation, naturally,” then what you have just learned about yourself is that you don’t understand a very significant part of what it is to be a human male.

And just as it is important for men to understand women, it is also important for women to understand men. And frankly, if we’re talking about offensiveness, what often offends me is the disregard exhibited by women all too often for the feelings of men. So many of you just assume that the way you feel about things must be applicable to us, when it just isn’t so. But my purpose here is not to complain about being mistreated by women. I save that for my blues band on the weekends.

—But her stripping down served *no other purpose* than to reduce her to a pair of tits for the edification of the male audience.—

As I said, that pair of tits would have been sexier and more satisfying in the context of a better written scene. But, let me not digress back into a rant about the poor writing in this movie. Given a choice between tits and no tits—I’ll have tits, please. And I do appreciate your word choice of “edification” there, whether you mean it as a double entendre or not.

—As bad is the fact that she asked him not to look and he looked anyway, because he wanted to. So what he wanted was more important than what she wanted. Which is the attitude that lies at the heart of most violence against women.—

This is quite a stretch, don’t you think? In Philosophy, this bit of reasoning is referred to as the Slippery Slope Fallacy. You do one little thing that a woman would rather you didn’t do, and the next thing you know you’re raping and murdering women left and right. Come now…I’m sure you’ve done things, from time to time, that some fella would rather you hadn’t done. And though I don’t know you, I suspect that you are not the type to go around abusing men for sadistic pleasure. (You’re not, right?) So, let’s just take a deep breath and a step backward here and view things in proper perspective: A horny young man sneaking a peak at a stunningly hot woman in her undies is the most natural thing in the world, and does not imply a total and utter disregard for her rights as a human.

—Do you really not care? Does it really not matter to you? When I and so many other women here and around the web at the moment express their dismay at the implications of that scene, and what it means in a wider cultural context, are you so lacking in any kind of empathy for another human being that you can truly say, Who cares so shut up?—

Well, I never told you or anyone to “shut up.” I like reading what you have to say. But I do suspect that you are injecting your own personal issues into that 2 second scene. Alice Eve was asked about it by Conan O’Brien, and she really didn’t seem the least bit bothered. Are you implying that Alice Eve is lacking in empathy for her fellow humans, or that she’s just not clever enough to understand the implications of the scene? Or perhaps that she’s lying about her true feelings in order to please her male employer and future male employers who are and will be in positions of power over her?

Your answer either suggests that (a) Alice Eve is a sociopath, which doesn’t square with appearances and is most probably not true; (b) that she’s basically a dumb blonde, thereby furthering a pernicious stereotype against women; or, (c) that she’s prostituting herself by stifling her morals and ethics for the likelihood of pecuniary reimbursement, which is really not a flattering thing to say about that nice girl.

Or, (d) your premise regarding the reason for our differing reactions to the scene in question, yours and mine, is false. ;-)

232. HubcapDave - May 24, 2013

I think the scene was a bit gratuitous. Unlike the Uhura scene in ST, it didn’t flow with what was going on. Do I think it’s sexist or misogynistic? Hardly. It seems that the writer of this article seems to think that any depiction of of a woman in a sexy manner is automatically an objectification of woman and I couldn’t disagree more, and further, I think it seems to stereotype all men as upon seeing any attractive woman in any state of undress automatically seeing them as nothing more than a physical object.

And, just out of curiosity, I wonder how the author of this article felt about Kathy Bates full frontal scene in About Schmidt?

233. reni - May 24, 2013

230 Cygnus-X1 —
Can you at least agree that the inclusion of her stripping down to her underwear was unnecessary to the scene? That the movie would have been completely fine without it?

234. PaulB - May 24, 2013

Two movies in a row where the female officers have NO rank insignia on their sexy little outfits? Sexist through and through. The gratuitous undies scene just underlines how poorly these films already handle women.

235. reni - May 24, 2013

Actually the women have the most outfit choices, with a grand total of 3. The short sleeve dress, shirt with rank and pants, and the more classic long sleeve dress with rank insignia.

236. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 24, 2013

I guess I write from the idealistic point of view, but I don’t see what the hell knowing about chain of command has to do with this topic.

The issue is about how one human (male or female) might abuse the needs and rights of another (male or female). Phil wrote that I support sexism which is patently wrong and how he could possibly write such a lie, after everything I have written over the two or three years coming to this site, is beyond me.

I do not like or support either misogyny or misandry.

I want the world to be a fair one for both men and women.

237. Marja - May 24, 2013

I also think, if they HAD to have the underwear scene, written in a similar way [and I still have trouble figuring out why], they could have had Carol say, “I’m going to put on my flight suit, please turn around,” slip on her uniform [instead of just standing there after she gets down to her skivvies], seeing Kirk over her shoulder and repeating “turn around.” AND McCOY, who would ALSO be there changing, not staring at Carol, who spots Jim staring, echoing her with “yeah, turn around Jim, you’re a captain now, keep your eyes to yourself with your female officers.” This could have been a way for Kirk to have his “comic moment,” if they absolutely had to do it. His older friend, McCoy, reinforcing that it’s necessary for Jim to listen to the words of his crew and take those words – and his officers – seriously.

Because as her senior officer, Kirk should have respected her, not have ogled her. Respect in the military goes both ways.

As written, the scene is lame because she doesn’t explain [for the viewer, and to Kirk if he's an idiot who doesn't know she's going on the shuttle and has to change] *why* she is changing, and that she is in fact going to change, and that’s why he should turn around.

Egad, if only they’d had their conversation outside the shuttle, and Kirk had looked at her a beat too long, and Marcus could have said, “Have you heard a word I’ve said?”

238. Disinvited - May 25, 2013

#221. ObsessiveStarTrekFans – May 24, 2013

The odd thing is Michelle Rodriguez says that the only thing to which she can compare FF is STAR TREK.

239. Jannek - May 25, 2013

The scene is not sexisitc, it’s just plain stupid!

240. Marja - May 25, 2013

I have to say, the Shower of Evil [hee-hee] was *funny* – Cumby standing there with That Frown. They should have had him do some of the stretches a certain group with a charismatic leader did in “Space Seed,” then stand there, proud, with the shower running, face up with a mysterious smile, like “I own this world and everything in it.”

I wasn’t fond of the undies scene in ST2009 either – not only did Gaila become a “throwaway character” as someone Kirk wooed, then used to help him beat the Kobayashi Maru test, but Uhura could have just taken off her boots and noticed the mouth-breather before she stripped down. It “fit in a context” as written, and Uhura’s practical underwear fit her work-focused personality, but I would rather it had been written differently.

29, LLAP, On the Senior Starfleet Conference: You must have very sharp eyes! I spotted two Vulcans [a woman who *looked* Vulcan, to Pike’s left and the second, Spock, and an alien off to Kirk’s right. when I see the movie a 5th time, I’ll keep my eyes peeled :)

34, Sunfell, :) I agree wholeheartedly!

56, Yanks, Agreed, very good points thank you!

78, Reign, I’ve been complaining about the lack of rank insignia on uniform minidresses since Trek2009.

88 RJT, Yes, yes and yes. Uhura saved Spock’s life! When in his rage he tried to beat the shit out of K with a metal object after that, but Uhura told him to stop – and saved the criminal’s life with the goal – and result – of saving Kirk’s. I think people who say she was useless and whiny and all that crap forget these ‘little’ details. Conveniently for them, because they’re irritated with Uhura as a character, and they think they’re reinforcing their views with facts. NOT. Let us not forget that, attacked by the Klingon, she grabbed the opportunity presented by Khan’s distraction and stabbed that Klingon with his own knife, JUST AS A MALE CHARACTER WOULD HAVE DONE. In fact this echoes Kirk taking advantage of Ayel’s distraction with his own monologue to grab his gun and shoot him in ST2009.

107, Keachick, I agree with every point you made in this entry! And thanks for saying it in a compassionate way. I especially liked your point about Kirk moving to help the woman, and Spock helping Pike. They are kind people, and compassion is a mainstay in Starfleet, its officers, and gentlemen and -women.

115, Obsessive, thanks for listing who saved who – and the last of the list, Uhura saves Spock, and in turn, Kirk, by preserving K for his blood which has the POWAH!

108, Diego, yes, thank you for saying it. Women for equal rights for both sexes are [gasp!] feminists.

112 Nony, I have seen some of those cartoons and they are hilarious, the one of the Avengers made me LOL.

Karen, I have read nearly every one of your posts, and I applaud you mightily. You write wonderfully well and with a huge understanding and appreciation of writing, of symbolism, and the Trek characters. From your movie review a while back to this thread, I’ve agreed with you nearly 100%.

As another feminist who likes the Spock and Uhura relationship, I appreciate what you’ve said about the couple and their relationship, which is full of respect, concern, and care for the relationship and each other. As a feminist, I feel strongly that that means WOMEN GET TO MAKE CHOICES. Thank you for expressing this so much better than I did on a previous thread.

BobOrci, if you’re reading this, I do hope you will maintain Spock and Uhura as a couple. It means a lot to those of us who believe in caring, respectful relationships between men and women.

Phil, I appreciate what you’ve said also. Sexual harassment doesn’t just affect women, it affects organizations, and families and friends of the victim. I’ve been there.

I wrote a whole bunch of other stuff before my previous entry here, and apparently the site didn’t get it or my computer wiped it out thru an errant thumbstroke by me, durn it.
It basically had to do with Hollywood’s terrible effect on young peoples’ self-esteem regarding their bodies, how unrealistic it’s made our expectations of each other, and the effect on society in general.

It’s a damn shame Alice Eve had to lose so much weight, and WORKING OUT while on a stupid diet. She’s probably equally or more attractive with a few more pounds on her. Some men enjoy women who have curves besides the breast curves. [As for Zoe Saldana, she has said many times that she's naturally skinny. Whether true or not, I'll give her the benefit of a doubt. She's been a dancer since childhood, and has probably eaten sensibly all her life. Dancers have strong muscles throughout their bodies, and muscle burns calories.]

Someone mentioned Quinto’s weight gain. He gained 15 pounds working out for the movie, and as all men do on a fitness/muscle-building regimen, increased his dietary intake. He also built more “washboard abs” and the upper two in the bunch stick out, as happens with some males. He was very fit before this also, and for some reason, didn’t build as much visible muscle in training for the first movie [working on a fighting technique for a scene that was re-written to omit the fighting].

241. BaconBDC - May 25, 2013

The scene was obviously thrown in there with the specific purpose of being able to have a scantily clad woman in the trailers and commercials. I seriously believe that this was the only reason.

242. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 25, 2013

Apparently I read somewhere that Chris Pine was a bit surprised that it took a bit longer to lose the extra weight than he had expected. He had to bulk up a bit for the last film as well, but he lost the weight more quickly. Not so this time. This may have something to do with just that bit older, among other things.

I remarked in December 2011 when I heard that Chris was told to bulk up that I thought it was not that good an idea and that he does not need to look like the next Hollywood muscle-mutt.

I can’t believe that Zoe only lived on spinach – I suspect she may have been saying that in jest. Chris Pine has also mentioned having to eat lots of spinach as well – chicken and spinach. He wasn’t too fussed with it…spinach and green tea is the latest Hollywood body cleansing fad, which the lovely Chris had to try out. I think it did him some good – was a bit miffed that he could drink alcohol, smoke or eat his favourite, pasta…I hear the smallest of violins playing right now…:)

I bet you, if Chris reads this, he’ll probably be exclaiming, “Aaargghhh!” in a slightly grating (pissed-off) sound. I know, I know, C P…If only we knew who you are or who you think you are, we wouldn’t want to know…sigh…oh dear.

243. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 25, 2013

I guess it’s my bad for trying to write in the trekmovie user interface here. I’ll transfer this from my computer since for some reason my comment just got wiped out WHILE I was at the end of typing it, but I’ll type it again.

@#240 Marja

”t’s a damn shame Alice Eve had to lose so much weight, and WORKING OUT while on a stupid diet. She’s probably equally or more attractive with a few more pounds on her.”

She is. There is nothing wrong with the pictures I saw of her before her “special diet.” She looked like she was healthy. Zoe also looks healthy, just naturally thin.

”Someone mentioned Quinto’s weight gain. He gained 15 pounds working out for the movie, and as all men do on a fitness/muscle-building regimen, increased his dietary intake. He also built more “washboard abs” and the upper two in the bunch stick out, as happens with some males. He was very fit before this also, and for some reason, didn’t build as much visible muscle in training for the first movie [working on a fighting technique for a scene that was re-written to omit the fighting].”

He looked like he gained a lot more than 15 pounds, and it didn’t look like most of the gain was muscle. There is a scene of him standing next to Kirk in the captain’s chair where the camera shows part of his belly. It is not flattering, not in the least. He had to lose weight after the film to get back down to his natural size.

I think he might have been made to gain fat to look less attractive by comparison, but that is highly speculative on my part. I think Zachary looks best like he did in the ST09 movie, which is closer to his natural size. All he needed to do was to tone up a bit (and lose the chest and arm hair it we were going to see him shirtless, which seems like it won’t happen for some reason, hmmm).

BC also ate more while training for his role, but he was lean and svelte and actually had washboard abs. But, I’ll echo what someone else said about the way Zachary looked in STID: “Pudgy Spock can be adorable too.” My only issue is, for a Vulcan, would it be logical to eat more than your body requires? I’m guessing the answer to this is why I’ve never seen an overweight Vulcan until STID. It kind of makes me wonder…

244. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 25, 2013

And interestingly enough, BC’s washboard abs are an asset we don’t get to see until an outtake from the movie is released separately from the film.

245. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 25, 2013

@243. Spock/Uhura Admirer
“My only issue is, for a Vulcan, would it be logical to eat more than your body requires? I’m guessing the answer to this is why I’ve never seen an overweight Vulcan until STID. It kind of makes me wonder…”

Untrue, actually. I refer you to Ambassador V’Lar in the Enterprise episode Fallen Hero. She was definitely on the pudgy side. Also, Administrator V’Las and Ambassador Soval, for example, while no means fat, were certainly not svelte.

While I do agree that particular scene was not the most flattering to Quinto/Spock’s figure, we really have no way of knowing whether that was muscle or fat, and I’m certainly not going to lose sleep over it one way or the other. He struck me as more muscled in STID compared to ST09, and that was it.

Quinto needed more bulk for the fighting and sprinting he was expected to do, merely ‘toning up’ was not going to cut it. This wasn’t a case of getting him to look a certain way (in my opinion), but getting him to a fit state to survive the exertions of filming the action scenes.

Both Quinto and Pine had to lose weight once STID filming had ceased. Actors having to gain or lose weight for a particular part is just a fact of life in Hollywood. I don’t think it’s particularly healthy, but it seems to go with the job.

I seriously doubt there was any conspiracy to make Quinto look less attractive for STID. If there was, then they failed, in my biased opinion ;-)

If we were to see Quinto/Spock shirtless at some stage, why would he have to lose the chest and arm hair? Nimoy’s chest was very hairy in the TOS episode Patterns of Force. It is Kirk that we are used to seeing without chest hair, not Spock.

246. j4yn1ck5 - May 25, 2013

Being unashamed of your body and capable of changing clothes in the presence of the opposite sex is empowering and a demonstration of strength of will. Get over yourself.

247. Cygnus-X1 - May 25, 2013

233. reni – May 24, 2013

—230 Cygnus-X1 –
Can you at least agree that the inclusion of her stripping down to her underwear was unnecessary to the scene? That the movie would have been completely fine without it?—

Yes, of course it was unnecessary to the scene. It was totally, shamelessly gratuitous. As was the TWOK death-scene rip-off unnecessary to the movie and also totally shameless. As I said above, the writing in this movie was quite deficient…

Which is why I can’t agree that the movie would have been totally fine without the Alice Eve undies scene—because the movie wasn’t even totally fine WITH that scene.

But, yes, that scene did not contribute anything to the story. It was just one of the many devices employed by JJ, Orci, Kurtzman, et al to give us instant gratification in lieu of a more substantial, meaningful, satisfying experience. The movie was total eye candy. The 3D looked great, the visuals and CGI combined with the action set pieces were all very titillating, as was seeing a gorgeous woman in her undies.

But if you’re asking me whether I enjoyed the movie more with the undies scene than I would have without it, the answer is that I would have enjoyed the movie less without the undies scene, just as I would have enjoyed it less without the great 3D and all of the other titillating visuals.

And I would have enjoyed the movie much more if the writing were better and the movie were less superficial and shallow all around, including the undies scene, which could have been worked in much more gracefully, or sex appeal achieved in a totally different and more meaningful way.

248. Cygnus-X1 - May 25, 2013

In real life, 99% of us probably wouldn’t have the balls to turn around and brazenly sneak a peak as Kirk does in that scene. But that’s the point of the scene—Kirk is different from 99% of us in certain ways. He’s far more ambitious. Far more fearless. More impulsive. And while 99% of us would have just thought about sneaking a peak but not had the balls to do it, Kirk just goes for it. It’s central to his character.

249. Cygnus-X1 - May 25, 2013

But yes, that scene would have been just as effective—perhaps more so—without letting us see the lovely Alice Eve’s gorgeous body in such a gratuitous way. For example, Kirk could have tried to turn around and sneak a peak, only to have his head turned back around by Dr. Marcus. And in the process, maybe we catch a glimpse of her gorgeous body from behind or from the side. This would have achieved the same goals for the characters in a more graceful, less gratuitous way, and set them up better for future sexual tension and eventual romantic involvement.

250. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 25, 2013

@ObsessiveSTF“Untrue, actually. I refer you to Ambassador V’Lar in the Enterprise episode Fallen Hero. She was definitely on the pudgy side. Also, Administrator V’Las and Ambassador Soval, for example, while no means fat, were certainly not svelte.”

Okay, let me rephrase that. I don’t recall ever seeing an overweight Vulcan until STID. Also, the fact that those Vulcans, by your assessment, were overweight might not necessarily be attributable to diet. There are human conditions that affect weight (like thyroid issues), so who’s to say what might affect Vulcans? This might be a stretch, I know, but it’s plausible. And out of your list, I remember Soval. He’s not overweight at all. So, it may also be that we have differing views of what overweight looks like for certain characters, and that’s okay.

I said that BC was svelte with his muscle gain by comparison, not others that played Vulcans. I’m not even sure that comparison can be made because I don’t know of any other Vulcan where the actor had to gain weight for the role. Aren’t they naturally 3x stronger than humans anyway? I’m guessing Spock is 2x stronger because he’s half human. You know, they could have just had Zach tone up a bit and cover that fact about Vulcans in the film somehow.

I mean, was there anything new that we learned about any of these characters from this movie? This is coming from taking the perspective of someone that doesn’t know anything about ST but the ’09 film. Correction: There was one thing. Chekov shadows Scotty on or off duty.

The only explanation I can have (canon-wise) for our New Spock’s weight gain is grief or something. Hopefully that gets resolved by the next film. And don’t mistake me. I’m going to like Spock regardless of weight gain or not. I’m just saying I noticed the change and I’m not sure if it made sense.

”While I do agree that particular scene was not the most flattering to Quinto/Spock’s figure, we really have no way of knowing whether that was muscle or fat, and I’m certainly not going to lose sleep over it one way or the other. He struck me as more muscled in STID compared to ST09, and that was it.

Quinto needed more bulk for the fighting and sprinting he was expected to do, merely ‘toning up’ was not going to cut it. This wasn’t a case of getting him to look a certain way (in my opinion), but getting him to a fit state to survive the exertions of filming the action scenes.”

It just looks like he gained weight to me, and not like he got ripped. I do believe he also gained some muscle, but that’s not what stands out from my view. He still looked good, though.

”Both Quinto and Pine had to lose weight once STID filming had ceased. Actors having to gain or lose weight for a particular part is just a fact of life in Hollywood. I don’t think it’s particularly healthy, but it seems to go with the job.”

I know. And Alice Eve probably finally got to eat a sandwich. Why is it that the ladies always seem to have to starve themselves for roles while the men can gain weight? Cumberbatch said something like every time he looked up they were stuffing a chicken in him. You could say that it’s the difference in male/female bodies, but that diet Alice went on didn’t seem like it would be good for anyone. She mentioned getting into proper fighting shape, but then, wouldn’t a well-balanced diet achieve that better? That’s all I’m saying.

”I seriously doubt there was any conspiracy to make Quinto look less attractive for STID. If there was, then they failed, in my biased opinion ;-)”

Lol, I’m with you on that one. :-) I’ve even said as much elsewhere. Even “Pudgy Spock” is hot.

”If we were to see Quinto/Spock shirtless at some stage, why would he have to lose the chest and arm hair? Nimoy’s chest was very hairy in the TOS episode Patterns of Force. It is Kirk that we are used to seeing without chest hair, not Spock.”

I’m not saying it has to happen, but all of the illustrations I’ve seen of him (during the 4 year hiatus) have him without chest and arm hair, and so that’s what seems to click in my mind. I don’t think he would look bad with the chest and arm hair, but I do think he would look better without it.

251. Karen - May 25, 2013

@240 Marja

Well, it’s a case of right back atcha. I am endlessly informed and challenged by everyone’s opinions here, whether it’s a case of agree or disagree.

I had a post vanish on me earlier today. I have no idea why!

252. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 25, 2013

@250. Spock/Uhura Admirer

I did not say Soval was overweight; I said he was not svelte.

According to the interviews I watched and read, the requirement for Quinto to put on more muscle mass had nothing to do with the Spock character, and everything to do with the actor being strong enough for the rigours of the sprinting and fight scenes. What may only be minutes on the screen can take many long days of physical activity to film.

I personally prefer men with little body hair, so it is fortunate for me that my husband falls into that category. However, since Nimoy had a hairy chest, that places in my mind that Spock has a hairy chest. Therefore I have no problem with Quinto also having a hairy chest. If the Quinto/Spock character were shown not to have a hairy chest, that would probably cause me a moment of cognitive dissonance, but I would probably get used to it, just as I did the different pitch of their voices, or the change in colour of Kirk’s eyes.

By the way, here is a picture of V’Lar. I stand by my comment that she is pudgy:
http://www.treksinscifi.com/trekdaily/pictures/2008-10-30-Fallen_Hero.jpg

253. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 25, 2013

@ObsessiveSTF#252

“@250. Spock/Uhura Admirer

I did not say Soval was overweight; I said he was not svelte.

According to the interviews I watched and read, the requirement for Quinto to put on more muscle mass had nothing to do with the Spock character, and everything to do with the actor being strong enough for the rigours of the sprinting and fight scenes. What may only be minutes on the screen can take many long days of physical activity to film.”

Okay. Point taken on Soval. Will you also take my point that Soval being “svelte” or not makes no difference here because that was not my comparison. Also, more muscle mass for sprinting and fight scenes is fine. I have no problem with that, and I haven’t said that I have. I even acknowledged the fact that he gained muscle too. I just said that it also looks like he gained fat.

Maybe these films shouldn’t be so action heavy if they are that demanding physically. No one needs to look like Rambo in order to perform, or rather I guess I should say that none of the crew should need to look like, or like they are training to look like, that.

Spock ran around a lot and had action/battle scenes in the last film too, and he looked great. I’m just hoping we can return to that, especially if it is easier on the actor judging from your accounts.

“I personally prefer men with little body hair, so it is fortunate for me that my husband falls into that category. However, since Nimoy had a hairy chest, that places in my mind that Spock has a hairy chest. Therefore I have no problem with Quinto also having a hairy chest. If the Quinto/Spock character were shown not to have a hairy chest, that would probably cause me a moment of cognitive dissonance, but I would probably get used to it, just as I did the different pitch of their voices, or the change in colour of Kirk’s eyes.”

Well, for me the hairy chest and arms would take adjusting too after I’ve got the smooth-skinned Spock images from others clicked into my memory. So, I guess we’re on opposite ends of that spectrum.

“By the way, here is a picture of V’Lar. I stand by my comment that she is pudgy:”

Yes, and she’s an old woman. So, that didn’t really stick in my memory because a lot of older people gain some weight in their old age because they can’t move around like they used to and their metabolisms aren’t what they used to be. A young Spock doesn’t have those excuses, but I see your point.

254. Allenburch - May 25, 2013

I LOVE ZOE SALDANA

255. Marja - May 25, 2013

243, S/U Admirer

15 pounds shows a lot more on a motion picture than you might believe! Alice Eve probably had to drop 5-10 pounds b/c she was *building muscle* … I think/hope Quinto would have been more frank about how much weight he gained, but even 15 pounds will show on the face.

I agree that I do like him thinner, but he said he liked how he felt … hope that changed :) … maybe Mr Groff had a thing or two to say about that.

AND NO I DON’T WANT QUINTO TO DROP ONE BIT OF HIS BODY HAIR. I find hairy men much more attractive than the waxed variety now on display – I think they look silly and unmanly, but that’s JMHO.

256. CaptainKirok - May 25, 2013

This is probably the worst article I’ve ever read on this site. And it’s disappointing how many people are attacking Star Trek Into Darkness for being gratuitously sexist.

Let me tell you why it was not gratuitous. I will explain as clearly as I can why the scene does serve a purpose.

Simply put, the scene shows some flirtation between the characters. Kirk is titillated by Carol, and this is an example of foreshadowing. It hints at possibilities to come.

Those of you who are claiming that Kirk should not have violated her privacy are disappointly illogical. A person simply does not get to command others to avert their eyes. If she wanted privacy, she shouldn’t have changed in the same space as Kirk.

She did not seem terribly upset when he did look because she did indeed feel attracted to him.

Why are we trying to take the sexiness out of Star Trek? Do you really want everyone to just stand around and become sexless Vulcans who never flirt, and never show their feelings?

Well, at least now everyone should know that the scene HAD a purpose.

257. CaptainKirok - May 25, 2013

And for those of you criticizing her for being so foolish to change right there, or being foolish to take we clothes off and think Kirk wouldn’t look… Well, I think you don’t understand her at all. She wasn’t foolish. She was flirtatious. And I suspect quite strongly that she really wasn’t upset at all by what happened.

Remember that earlier, she teased him about his reputation. That was either very inappropriate or she was teasing/flirting. Then this undressing scene happens. And at the end, does she seem creeped out to be on the Enterprise with the lecherous Kirk? Nope. She’s happy as can be. And that’s because SHE LIKES HIM!!!!

258. reni - May 25, 2013

CaptainKirok —
It’s gratuitous because the shot wasn’t for Kirk or the scene, it was done for the audience to look at her. Look at the still and notice the camera angle. It’s not from Kirk’s POV, it’s for the audience to check her out.

259. reni - May 25, 2013

And you know why it’s sexist? Because Marcus is the only character in the movie to be viewed at this angle where it showcases her body first and face second.
Where’s the waist level shot of Captain Kirk’s bulge and butt for the fangirls? JJ had the wetsuit scenes digitally edited to lessen ‘the view’ so to speak.
So why do fanboys get their gratuitous body shot scene and fangirls don’t?

260. Disinvited - May 25, 2013

#256. CaptainKirok – May 25, 2013

The problem with your chosen indicator is the only way for Kirk to know if looking would be appropriate or not is after the fact, i.e. whether or not the woman has a frowny face. The smart professional knows the smartest move in a professional situation when a fellow professional tells you not to look – you don’t look.

261. CaptainKirok - May 25, 2013

The smart professional??? Is there a manual or something? I’ve never seen a list of guidelines telling me what to do when a fellow employee orders me not to look, I should obey.

In fact, in many cases, If a colleague ordered me not to look, I would feel obligated TO look. Who knows what they’re up to? It could be negligent not to look. And in Kirk’s case, he already knew that she was sneaky and dishonest. He has no reason to trust her at that point.

And as far as the view being from waist level… I thought Kirk was sitting when he looked. If I remember correctly, it’s as simple as that.

262. reni - May 25, 2013

CaptainKirok —
You see how her head is turned? Kirk is standing off to the side. She’s making eye contact with him while her body is getting checked out by the audience.

263. Karen - May 25, 2013

@261 CaptainKirok

Which says everything about you, really. And no, Kirk was not seated.

264. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 25, 2013

No, it doesn’t say everything about CaptainKirok, Karen. Kirk did not trust Carol Wallace, who he found out had lied about who she was, Carol Marcus, Admiral Marcus’s daughter. Carol did not make it clear to him why she wanted him to turn around and he did not have complete trust in her.

Clarity and honesty help mitigate a lot of misunderstandings and worse.

265. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 25, 2013

@Marja

”15 pounds shows a lot more on a motion picture than you might believe! Alice Eve probably had to drop 5-10 pounds b/c she was *building muscle* … I think/hope Quinto would have been more frank about how much weight he gained, but even 15 pounds will show on the face.”

I don’t know. It looked like more, but they do say the camera adds 10 pounds. It’s just that he’s the only one in the film that has this issue. So, I don’t know.

”I agree that I do like him thinner, but he said he liked how he felt … hope that changed :) … maybe Mr Groff had a thing or two to say about that.

Well, I guess me must have because Zachary is down to his normal size. :-)

”AND NO I DON’T WANT QUINTO TO DROP ONE BIT OF HIS BODY HAIR. I find hairy men much more attractive than the waxed variety now on display – I think they look silly and unmanly, but that’s JMHO.

Well, Marja, are you sure you don’t want to tell me how you really feel? ;-)

I’ve already seen Zachary with a hairy chest, so I think a change would be nice. You know, something different. Honestly, I don’t think a wax job is his enemy. :-)

266. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 25, 2013

Oh, I meant to type “I’m sure he must have,” because I surely don’t have that kind of influence. ;-)

267. Trekkiegal63 - May 25, 2013

Interesting review came through my Star Trek RSS feed today, a review of STID from an Ottawa newspaper, and guess what this reviewer had to say (hint: the title of the review gives a clue “Star Trek is the future? Sure looks like the past”)…

A few excerpts:

There are 10 men with major roles in Star Trek Into Darkness, and two women. One is Uhura, who is awesome in the Star Trek canon, but she spends most of Into Darkness mooning over Spock, or being the setup for tedious “women, can’t live with them,” humour to fuel the Kirk-Spock bromance.

The other is the woman played by Alice Eve, a science officer. She’s clever, interesting and — oh look, there she is in her underwear. It came and went as if the writers thought it was obligatory. The script doesn’t even bother to explain why she has to change her outfit, never mind get changed in Kirk’s presence.

She then went on to write, later in the article…

Watching Kirk and his mostly male gang save the universe is more jarring today than it would have been in 1966, because, well, this is not 1966. We are closer to the 23rd century than Gene Roddenberry was.

And then went on to quote actress Felicia Day as saying…

“Seriously, in the future not one woman over 40 is in charge in this world?”

Link to article: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Underwear+scenes+sure+where+other+Starfleet+women+Star+Trek+future/8432662/story.html

Add that to what writer Alyssa Rosenberg had to say on the subject at thinkprogress.org:

It’s this kind of thing that always makes me want to curl up under my desk with the dragon’s egg and Ron Swanson bobblehead on it and rock back and forth for a while.

Because if you’re one of the many wonderful people who consumes or works in genre fiction, particularly science fiction and fantasy, and wishes that those genres could escape their second-class status because of the work they do to explore big issues and to create great characters, Lindelof is not helping. First, he’s reaffirming every stereotype in the world about geeks who are more likely to see a grown woman get undressed on screen than in the flesh, and who get all cranky and entitled about their need to said fictional characters take off their clothes, story, character, agency, and reciprocity be hanged.

Link to entire article: http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/05/21/2042741/damon-lindelofs-blithe-treatment-of-star-trek-sexism-and-why-genre-fiction-gets-no-respect/

…It’s interesting to note that I’ve been getting at least one or two (sometimes more) of these types of articles, all addressing the same subject i.e. the sexism in Star Trek Into Darkness, A DAY in the RSS feed since the movie came out. Add it to the list of things that make you go hmmmm.

268. Trekkiegal63 - May 25, 2013

#201. Jovius the Romulan:

Aww shucks, thank you! And yes, absolutely, we must! :)

269. Can't stop laughing - May 25, 2013

#164 oh blow off. The subtext is that she wants Kirk to look. It’s obvious.

You’ll whinge about two seconds of underwear but it doesn’t seem to bother you very much that Uhura is basically an accessory to Spock’s 10-points-of-articulation-action-figure now. That’s the thing that makes me laugh the most about JJ Trek – in a blunderous attempt to make her more important (to pander to Halle Berry, probably) they’ve eliminated her job description and made her MORE of a token than Nichelle Nichols ever was.

Tragic!

270. Curious Cadet - May 25, 2013

Of some relevance:

Stunned By Military Sex Scandals, Advocates Demand Changes

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/23/186335999/stunned-by-military-sex-scandals-advocates-demand-changes?sc=ipad&f=1001

271. Karen - May 26, 2013

@268 Trekkiegal

Brilliant links. Thank you!

272. swpinsent - May 26, 2013

As others have pointed out Kayla, I think you should lookup feminism. I’m a man and I am a feminist! It’s a fairly simple concept, yet if you don’t understand it you shouldn’t refer to it in an article.

As for the rest of the article you are spot on. As for Uhura undressing in the first movie – that was certainly gratuitous as well.

273. Yanks - May 26, 2013

@ 257. CaptainKirok – May 25, 2013

Exactly.

Lots of talk about gaining weight for Spock. Chris Pine also had to gain weight for the movie.

And to listen to some here talk about this as bad… folks have been altering there bodies for part forever. I’m sure the guys will lose it and that gals will gain it back if they choose. It’s part of being an actor/actress. Comes with the territory. They are no different than anyone else. You just hope they are healthy about it.

267. Trekkiegal63

The author of that article obviously only see things with “woman” blinders on.

TOS was cast as TOS was cast. So now JJ & co are bad because they respected the origional show and didn’t change the sex of the characters?

I think they did what they could and brought Marcus into the mix. I also don’t have a problem seeing her in something that has 10 times the material of what gals wear on the beach.

I personally am glad they didn’t do the nuBSG thing and start swapping the gender of major roles.

274. Classy M - May 26, 2013

@Can’t stop laughing – “The subtext is that she wants Kirk to look.”

That smacks of the “She wanted it” argument some people make about rape victims.

275. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 26, 2013

@Yanks

“You just hope they are healthy about it.”

Right, which was a part of the problem. Zach’s weight gain didn’t seem entirely healthy, and Alice’s weight loss didn’t seem healthy at all. Please click the link to the article I posted above to understand what I am talking about. Thanks.

276. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 26, 2013

@Trekkiegal63

Thanks for the links.

277. Karen - May 26, 2013

@273 Swpinsent

Honestly. I don’t think the Uhura scene in the first film was gratuitous — which is why I’m so pissy over the Marcus scene. There was context with Uhura . They were in her quarters, she was getting changed in the middle of a conversation with another woman, it was all pretty businesslike. And when Uhura realised Kirk was there she kicked him out in no uncertain terms. Furthermore, when Kirk popped up he was in his underwear, running his mouth, not being salacious at all. Most importantly, for me, they were equals. They were both cadets, so there was no imbalance of power in the scene. I thought it was a well constructed scene which accomplished a number of things, narratively.

There is no redeeming feature to the Carol Marcus scene. It’s a major black eye for the Trek team. And what I find fascinating is that while there’s been a tidal wave of criticism over it this time, nobody was up in arms over the Uhura scene from last time. At least not that I can recall.

Also fascinating is that, for the most part, the complaints about the criticism boil down to — sit down and stfu you spoil sport wimmenz, how dare you object to being demeaned. I like it when you’re demeaned so lie back and take it. And anyway, she wanted it.

So yes, @ 275. That’s exactly what it smacks of. Which is bitterly disappointing, since I still cling to the tattered dream of gender equality.

278. Disinvited - May 26, 2013

#261. CaptainKirok – May 25, 2013

OK, let’s do it your way.

Kirk turns around and looks and Carol has a happy face. According to you that’s a clear indication that it’s ok to have looked.

Kirk turns around and looks and Carol has a frowny face. According to you it’s still ok – so what was your point in introducing Carol’s face as an indicator of propriety if it doesn’t matter?

279. Red Dead Ryan - May 26, 2013

The scene with Carol Marcus changing was clearly sexist, and there was no point to it, either. If they took the scene out (which they should have done before releasing the movie; hopefully it gets deleted before they put the film out on home video) the movie would have still worked fine.

I hope they delete that scene, as well as the catwomen scene as well. Neither were neeeded, nor called for.

280. MC1 Doug - May 26, 2013

I prefer seeing Chris Pine in his undies.

281. CaptainKirok - May 26, 2013

Just watched it again…
You guys were right about Kirk standing. I was wrong about that.
You guys also failed to mention that after she ordered him to turn around, he asked, “Why?” and instead of answering him, she just gave him a flirtatious eye-stare.

I think that is relevant.

282. CaptainKirok - May 26, 2013

#263 Karen,
Your post is actually offensive, and it’s an ad hominem fallacy as well. If you disagree with me, give your reasons and evidence. Insulting others pretty much loses the argument for you. In my job, and in many jobs, and in Kirk’s profession, it is not responsible to let other people do sneaky things while you look away and do nothing. Look at the Jerry Sandusky / Coach Paterno scandal. There is very little that people should be doing on the job where they should need privacy. And again, he asked her “Why?” She could have said, “Because I’m going to change my clothes,” BUT SHE DIDN’T!!! He had no idea what she was doing and had every right to look. For all he knew, she was going to pull a phaser on him or sabotage something.

#274 Classy M
And what you just said smacks of the notion that no guy could ever flirt with a girl without harassing her, while she can do all the flirting she wants and then pretend she wasn’t flirting at all. Kirk did not rape Marcus. The comparison is silly because it’s extreme. You are likening what he did to a terrible terrible crime.

#277 Karen
So if someone disagrees with you, then they are telling all women to sit down and shut up? That’s not what I’m doing. I asked my partner what she thought about this and she rolled her eyes at the notion that some people are so offended by the scene. She said that some people seem to get offended over the littlest thing. She also thought Marcus was flirting, and she pointed out that this scene also had a purpose because in the other timeline, Kirk and Marcus got together, and so this might be a precursor of something to come. This is the beginning of the relationship, and there is already a hint of sexual energy. And neither character was demeaned. Neither character seemed troubled in the slightest. Neither myself nor my partner enjoy seeing women demeaned. I also stick to the dream of gender equality, and your quick attack on Kirk doesn’t seem equal to me.

#278 Disinvited
You are right that the look on her face didn’t matter a bit as far as the acceptability of Kirk’s action goes. Kirk, as captain, had every right to look. Especially after he asked her “Why?” and she stared into his eyes and refused to answer him.
Now, as far as her reaction when he did look… it has no bearing on whether Kirk should have looked or not. However, it does indicate Carol Marcus’ state of mind. Some people have been putting her down, and saying that the scene makes her look like an idiot. I disagree. I think she is a powerful and intelligent woman who began flirting with Kirk the minute she started talking about his reputation. When Kirk does look, her reaction indicates that she is actually angry or upset. Her tone of voice continues to be quite flirtatious.
And again, for all of you who think she didn’t want him to look… If she really wanted to change in privacy, she would have told him WHY she wanted him to look away.
#279 Red Dead Ryan
I already explained what the point of the scene was.

283. Curious Cadet - May 26, 2013

Very interesting:

FF6 is less sexist than STID!? Haha

http://www.slashfilm.com/what-fast-furious-6-could-teach-star-trek-into-darkness-about-half-naked-women/

284. tom - May 26, 2013

Misogynist for showing a woman in her underwear. You 22 percent who agree with that nonsense are pretty stupid. Would you say it was hateful towards men to show Kirk in his underwear in Trek 2009?

Maybe you all need to get unbent.

285. Phil - May 26, 2013

@256. About the only way your argument holds any water is to assume that Starfleet has no standards at all for codes of conduct….and we know that is not true. You are free to make that argument, as a couple other people also hold that position, but most of the rest of us understand that is not true.

286. CaptainKirok - May 26, 2013

#285 Phil
Since I was #256, I assume you are talking to me.
First, I think you are mistaken to put me in the minority here. Didn’t the poll show that most people didn’t think this was sexist? Anyway, it doesn’t really matter who is in the minority. It is possible for vast numbers of people to be incorrect about lots of things. What really matters is what the evidence and logic shows, not how many people are on your side. That’s also a logical fallacy – ad populum, I think.
I am sure that Starfleet does have codes of conduct. I bet they would prohibit a person from disrobing in a professional setting. And I’m sure they would not prohibit a captain from observing the events going on in his ship, especially when people who have lied and misrepresented themselves are involved!

287. dmduncan - May 26, 2013

The Marcus scene was just like the Uhura scene in 2009. Marcus was changing her clothes. She reaches into the container, pulls something dark out, asks Kirk to turn around, and in the next scene she’s wearing the dark uniform outside the shuttle. She wasn’t inexplicably undressed. It was very explicable.

That’s why I think the gripe is much ado about nothing.

You can argue JJ should have made it clearer in how he shot the scene, but it doesn’t leave you completely hanging without any clues either.

And I’m learning to disregard what Lindelof says.

I’m amazed at some of the things he should NOT say actually defeating all the security protocols in his brain and escaping his mouth.

288. Classy M - May 26, 2013

@282. CaptainKirok – “What you just said smacks of the notion that no guy could ever flirt with a girl without harassing her.”

Flirting doesn’t come into it. It’s not a matter of seduction, it’s a matter of the abuse of power,

The point is Kirk watches Marcus undressing although she specifically told him not to. Saying that she really did want him to look is an exact parallel to a man raping a woman and claiming ‘she wanted it,’ In both instances, the male justifies inexcusable behaviour by putting the blame on the woman.

I’m not saying leering at a woman in violation of her wishes is the same thing as rape, but there is certainly a parallel.

In the scene, Kirk has a position of authority over Marcus and uses it to ignore her expressed wishes. Furthermore, purely as a piece of script-writing it failed because it added nothing to either the plot or the characters.

289. CaptainKirok - May 26, 2013

#288 Classy
You are mistaken to suggest that flirting was not a part of that scene. You don’t seem to understand what was going on in that scene.

There was no abuse of power on Kirk’s part. And you are so extremely mistaken OR dishonest to claim that “Kirk watches Marcus undressing although she specifically told him not to.” First, Kirk did not watch her. He glanced her way. But more importantly, SHE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY TELL HIM NOT TO WATCH HER UNDRESS! In fact, as I have said repeatedly, he asked her “Why?” when she told him not to look, and she then just repeated her command. If she had said, “Captain, please don’t look because I’m going to change my clothes,” and then he looked, then I would be on your side. HE DIDN’T KNOW SHE WAS GOING TO UNDRESS! And, he also had no reason to trust her at that point. She didn’t give him any “specific” instructions at all. She ordered him to look away, and did not give a reason.

Open your mind to the possibility that you may have misinterpreted the scene.

While I prefer to see both characters as likable people who were flirting with each other, if I had to blame either character for creating an inappropriate or uncomfortable sexual situation, I would blame her. She didn’t tell him she was going to undress, then she stripped down, and then tried to blame him for looking.

Imagine if the roles were reversed and a man told a woman to look away, and when she asks why, he just repeats his demand, and then strips down. She looks and is shocked to see him undressed, and then he has the nerve to blame the woman.

This was not a situation that Kirk created. The situation was created by Carol Marcus. She was not a victim.

There is absolutely no parallel between the situations you discuss. Raping a woman when she has said “no,” is an inexcusable crime, and it treats other people as though they are there for you to use as you wish. Kirk did absolutely nothing to Carol. She, on the other hand, was the active person in the scene. And it all could have been avoided if she was clear about why she wanted him to look away.

Think about the scene where she starts talking about his “reputation”. Imagine that scene reversed. If a man came into a new job situation and started suggesting to his brand new female boss that he had heard about her “reputation” (wink wink nudge nudge), would people see that as inappropriate? Would it be offensive?

Carol Marcus, NOT Jim Kirk, was the one pushing the envelope in these scenes.

I find it fascinatingly disappointed when people who claim to be pushing for equality are unwilling to embrace it themselves.

290. Kwami - May 26, 2013

You’re not a feminist? You sound like you want women to be treated equally to men. Seems pretty feminist to me…

291. Phil - May 26, 2013

@289. Well, if you are going to run with the broad generalities, so can I. Most everything I’ve read about that scene puts your position squarely in the minority, so yeah, I’m going to put some stock in the idea that that many people can’t be wrong. It’s also possible you live in some corner of the world where this sort of thing is perfectly acceptable, as a good percentage of females on this planet can expect to be groped as part of their daily affairs, or still be executed for having the audacity of think they are entitled to an education. Now, if you do live in the States, and, if in your capacity as supervisor you feel the need to inspect your female employees in some sort of state of undress, good luck with your ‘she was flirting’ defense when you get hauled onto civil or criminal court. I don’t think case law is on your side, buddy…I sat in on enough corporate harassment seminars to figure it out….

292. Spock_and_Syboks_Smarter_Brother - May 26, 2013

Thank you so much for the well-written piece, Kayla. And thanks much for letting us guys into the secret that women enjoy checking out other women too, especially if they’re aesthetically pleasing. I’m sure the same goes for guys too. Nothing wrong with admiring the human body.

But that said, the shot of Carol Marcus in her undies was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY to the plot!

The only way this can be salvaged is if, in the next movie, Carol explains that it was her attempt at seducing Kirk, all along, as she secretly harbored a crush on him from the first time they met.

293. CaptainKirok - May 26, 2013

#291 Phil
That’s hilarious! Please show me a case where an employee just decided to strip in a professional setting without any telling anyone ahead of time, and then succeeded in prosecuting someone for noticing.

Well?

Well?

Still haven’t found one?

I’m waiting.

294. CaptainKirok - May 26, 2013

#292 Spock & Sybok
You are right that the whole scene was unnecessary, as were many of the scenes. But that doesn’t make it bad and it doesn’t mean it didn’t serve a purpose at all.
I don’t really think there’s anything that needs salvaging. Also, I think it’s strongly implied that she has some attraction towards him. I don’t think they need to go and explicitly state it in the next movie.

295. vulcan girl - May 26, 2013

288. Classy M – May 26, 2013
Get real.
If I had taken my male boss alone to a room, in the middle of a crisis no less, then told him not to look so I could strip down to my underthingies and change I would have been fired.
Holy smokes, talk about putting him in a compromising position. She can’t ask the captain of the ship to just “not look” randomly without telling him what’s going on. He would have had the right to be angry at her.
I agree with CaptainKirok that if the roles were perfectly reversed and it was a man that was changing you would probably be upset at him and again felt that the female was the victim. For myself, I don’t want this notion going around that women are always victims. How sad.
If she really, really needed to ensure her privacy and was afraid of his reputation she would have done the smart thing and either dressed in another room or told him what she was about to do. It’s so obvious that she was flirting, you don’t take that kind of risk with someone you’re not at all interested in.
All that being said about the “sexism” in that particular situation I would like to put my two cents worth in about whether the scene itself was necessary or not.
It absolutely was. We already know that in another timeline he does have a relationship with Marcus. Having a few seconds here and there implying some intimacy is perfectly warranted. And yes, having her in her bra and panties for a second (regardless of the angle it was shot from) is just the kind of seed that needs planting for future intimacy.

296. Karen - May 26, 2013

@291 Phil

Bless you, a thousandfold.

For me, here’s now it shakes down.

There’s a scene in a movie that raises all kinds of red flags for many men and women, regarding sexual exploitation and gratuitous nudity. These concerns are raised in an open forum. A great many male fans respond to the concerns, and the people raising the concerns, in a dismissive, hostile and often demeaning fashion. In doing so, they underline the problem that’s being raised in the first place.

There are three ways those red flag concerns can be answered. One is to say, I totally see what you’re saying and you have my support. Another is to say, Wow, I didn’t see that, but let me take a moment to stand in your shoes and think about the scene and why it strikes you that way.The third is to say, Shut up, you’re wrong, you’re a spoil sport.

What makes me sad is that almost exclusively, male fans are choosing the third option. And what they don’t seem to comprehend, or don’t want to even think about comprehending, is that as men they have zero authority to tell a woman that she is not feeling objectified or demeaned by that scene.

As a woman, at various times in my life, I have been subjected to everything from sexual intimidation/harassment right through to actual physical assault. It’s pretty much a given that any woman you choose to speak to has a story that fits somewhere along that spectrum. The arrogance of men who never, ever have to consider living in our world, where our bodies are deemed public property and our opinions are dismissed as irrelevant when set against the male desire, is overwhelming.

Pointing out the crap like that Marcus scene is not the same as saying all men are evil deviant bastards. I don’t for a moment think that the Trek team guys are evil deviant bastards. And enjoying the sight of an attractive woman’s scantily clad body does not make a man an evil, deviant bastard. Nevertheless, the constant barrage of that kind of imagery, the constant usage of women’s bodies in that context, is hugely problematical.

And those who would rather defend that, and perpetuate the distress it causes to many many women, rather than attempt to see things from a different perspective, a perspective in which they are vulnerable, are people who need to take a long hard look at themselves as human beings.

297. reni - May 27, 2013

I think the problem is people are taking this scene as a serious part of the story. They are trying to justify and integrate it into canon as a character trait of Marcus, Kirk or both. However if one takes a moment to look closer at the scene (more specifically the still) and think critically, it’s very easy to see this wasn’t meant to further the story/characterization at all. It was made as fanservice first and part of the story second.

In my earlier comments, I tried to point out the camera angles in the various unclothed scenes and the eye level they’re presenting. I wanted to get everyone to look at the shots as objective viewers and social commentators. Critique STID on its merit as a film and what messages it’s showing us … not as a Trek fan getting new canon. The shot showing Marcus is not from Kirk’s POV but from a lower audience viewpoint meant solely to look up her body.

The fact is this shot wasn’t composed to further the story, it was made for the audience. It’s so blatant to the point it doesn’t fit in the scene.
In fact, I’m calling JJ out for being downright lazy composing this shot. It is gratuitous. Made as a pin up directed to only part of the audience and something to throw in the trailer with the hopes of getting a few shallow, virile, money spending people in the theater. While others see it and cringe or roll their eyes at the stereotypical gender portrayal, hoping the trailer is wrong and there must be an obvious reason for it.

In my opinion, this moment is not deep filmmaking. Once again we see a woman exposed and shown at a viewpoint that almost strips her identity by being body first, face second (there’s a reason eyes are blurred out when you want to hide a person’s identity). In fact, I’d be willing to argue the only person who’s actually looking at her as a person in this moment is Captain Kirk. Marcus is constantly maintaining eye contact with him while he’s off screen. Meanwhile, for those two second, the audience is forced to check her out and transformed into the role of Peeping Tom.

Since this was made as fanservice, it should be dismissed from the story right? Well, no. Because it’s still in there. So now we’re left trying to include a moment, that really wasn’t made with the story in mind, into canon. Which is why this scene is such a problem. To me, it’s actually really interesting to see how people are trying to integrate this as part of the story.

Composition aside, I think the creative team blew it choosing to include fanservice in this scene. In a similar real life situation (even though I know this is Trek and hence ‘fiction’) I don’t see a woman doing this. I don’t care what anyone says, a woman no matter how much she likes a guy, wouldn’t change down to her underwear to flirt/distract a man at her job let alone during a situation this important. Though since I know this is fiction and we’re going to see unrealistic interaction, I think the fault lies in the way it was presented. If you want to keep the changing scene, don’t compose a viewpoint that encourages and appeals directly to the male audience’s base instinct.

I hope people realize film imagery and human interaction, most importantly the way it’s presented in film, has a bigger impact on society than any story ‘canon.’ It shapes the way people act and behave. In this case, a lot of women are disappointed. We hope to see progressive messages, and respectful physical portrayals, of females.

I feel this is especially important in Star Trek, a series known for its social progressiveness. A gratuitous stereotypical body shot, for the sake of being a body shot, isn’t progressive.
And guess what, I don’t mind film makers appealing to an audience’s baser instincts. I see no problem exploiting bodies for fanservice if the moment allows for it. Just make sure it’s in a proper situation.
All I hope to see is that exploitation is equal. Compose and show the human body the same way for both genders. Especially if it’s mean to be for fanservice. I hope in the next film there’s a torso/body first, face second shot of a certain Captain or First Officer (heck, even a Doctor).

Finally, some food for thought. I say if you aren’t comfortable/can’t show a man’s body like you would show a womans’, don’t show any at all.

298. Karen - May 27, 2013

Well said. Only please, not fanservice. I’m a fan, and I wasn’t serviced at all. Fanboy service. Done by Abrams to appeal, according to the costume designer, young male viewers.

Which unfortunately explains a lot.

299. CaptainKirok - May 27, 2013

Aaah, after waiting and checking to see if my post appeared, and not seeing it there, I decided to post it again, and now it’s there twice!! My apologies.

300. CaptainKirok - May 27, 2013

# 297. reni – May 27, 2013

I agree that your message is well said. Further, I’d like to thank you for expressing it without being outright disrespectful to those who might disagree with you.

I think the scene is a bit weird, and I think it’s unprofessional for Carol to strip down as she does with her commanding officer present. I think it served a purpose in the story, but I am somewhat persuaded by you that the primary purpose may have been to excite young male viewers. If it is meant to add to the story by showing a flirtation between the characters, and I do think it served that story purpose, I think you would be correct to say that it could have been done better.

I found your comments about the camera angle surprising. My inclination is to think that when the camera angle looks upward at a person, it typically makes the person seem more powerful. And that is how I interpreted this scene. Marcus put Kirk in this position, and there she is, capturing his attention and adoration. She stands above him, and tells him what to do, yet again. Anytime I have seen pictures of models or women in men’s magazines, I have never noticed that there is a tendency to take a picture from waist level, and this is in pictures that are obviously portraying the women as sex objects. Honestly, I’m not sure you’re correct to use the camera angle as proof of your interpretation. But I think it’s interesting. I never would have thought of it, and I will now think about it in the future. If you are correct about WHY they chose that view, then it does seem a bit creepy.

You state:
I feel this is especially important in Star Trek, a series known for its social progressiveness. A gratuitous stereotypical body shot, for the sake of being a body shot, isn’t progressive.

I agree with you here. But while it’s not progressive, I didn’t find it at troubling as others. I did like the bald muscular woman with the little Starfleet dress on the bridge. What did you think about her? And how about the man-mini-dresses from Next Gen and The Motion Picture? Why did they abandon those?

You state: Finally, some food for thought. I say if you aren’t comfortable/can’t show a man’s body like you would show a womans’, don’t show any at all.

Agreed!

301. CaptainKirok - May 27, 2013

What’s going on? First my post isn’t there…. even after a long time. Then it appears twice, and now disappears again.

?

302. Mitchell - May 27, 2013

It isn’t sexist because of Eve’s underwear. It’s sexist because her character is a bumbling idiot. Who serves no purpose but to undress and be a damsel in distress foil along with Uhura-who gets an even worse treatment in the film, essentially reduced to a Kardashian.

Kirk twisting trying to get a peak like a creep and then finally just spinning around to survey her is the icing on the sexist cake.

303. Jemini - May 27, 2013

107. Keachick – rose pinenut – May 23, 2013
“What does seem to coming through in all this discussion is that it is somehow wrong, gratuitous even, for men, and especially women, to be seen as being caring, concerned, having a humanizing effect, encouraging to a fellow officer (and lover) – except, of course, if these are shown to facilitate the bromance mythology. God – this is so patriarchal and sexist.”

amen.

304. VorlonKosh - May 27, 2013

by the way, I don’t know if anyone has pointed it out yet, because I haven’t been able to read this entire thread, but there was one non-human (alien) at the starfleet command meeting he was sitting to the left of Adm Marcus.

305. CaptainKirok - May 27, 2013

#296 Karen (continued)

You state:
Pointing out the crap like that Marcus scene is not the same as saying all men are evil deviant bastards. I don’t for a moment think that the Trek team guys are evil deviant bastards. And enjoying the sight of an attractive woman’s scantily clad body does not make a man an evil, deviant bastard. Nevertheless, the constant barrage of that kind of imagery, the constant usage of women’s bodies in that context, is hugely problematical.

I agree. I am terribly offended by the fact that she was supposed to lose weight for this role. I personally didn’t find that scene a turn-on, and might have been more enjoyed it more if she was not so skinny. However, overall, I don’t find Star Trek to be particularly guilty of offering us the “constant barrage” you speak of. Further, I think Abrams and Bad Robot has done wonders for offering us a much healthier helping of strong female characters. Look at Alias and Fringe. And look at how they have tried to make Uhura a more important part of the story.

You state:
And those who would rather defend that, and perpetuate the distress it causes to many many women, rather than attempt to see things from a different perspective, a perspective in which they are vulnerable, are people who need to take a long hard look at themselves as human beings.

My response: I’m not sure exactly who you are referring to here. And are you suggesting that others should try to see things from a different perspective, but that you are not also obligated to do the same? As far as the scene goes, Carol Marcus was not vulnerable. Kirk, in fact, was put in a no-win situation. He looks, and he gets blamed. He doesn’t look, and his already-sabotaged ship could be further damaged by a person who has already proved to be dishonest and sneaky.
I do think Star Trek should do more to interrupt our stereotypes and our gender expectations. But for me, it isn’t so much that they shouldn’t show X, but rather that they should go ahead and show X, but accompany it with healthy doses of Y, Z, and all sorts of other stuff.

306. Eric - May 27, 2013

“-302. Mitchell – May 27, 2013″

Which llol might have just been a better scene if they had ripped (WHY NOT?) the giant cake and strip dance scene from Under Seige! haha

Eve served up out of a section 31 stripper cake for Captain Creep.

307. CaptainKirok - May 27, 2013

Karen:
You stated:
There are three ways those red flag concerns can be answered. One is to say, I totally see what you’re saying and you have my support. Another is to say, Wow, I didn’t see that, but let me take a moment to stand in your shoes and think about the scene and why it strikes you that way.The third is to say, Shut up, you’re wrong, you’re a spoil sport.

My response: It is certainly possible to take the second response, as offered above, and then still disagree with you and explain why I think you are wrong about some things. I would also challenge you to think about how it strikes others, and consider their perspectives, including those who are not sex-crazed fanboys who drool over every bit of skin they see.

You state:
What makes me sad is that almost exclusively, male fans are choosing the third option. And what they don’t seem to comprehend, or don’t want to even think about comprehending, is that as men they have zero authority to tell a woman that she is not feeling objectified or demeaned by that scene.

Response: Here you are characterizing people who disagree with you as men who want to shut you up. Further, you are suggesting that if a person feels objectified or demeaned then they are indeed objectified or demeaned. People have feelings all the time, and no one can stop them or tell them what their feelings are. However, some people’s feelings are unjustified in some cases. I’m not going to say that some level of disappointment isn’t justified. But the level of hostility in your comments is certainly unjustified.

308. CaptainKirok - May 27, 2013

Karen, you stated about Phil’s #291 statement…
“Bless you, a thousandfold.”
My response: For you to thank Phil for that absurd and offensive message is itself offensive. How dare you two compare Carol Marcus to a woman who has been raped or the vast numbers of women who have been subjugated and treated as property throughout certain places of the world. For you to talk about girls being executed for wanting an education and compare that to what happened to Carol Marcus is a huge insult to women who have been victimized. The same goes for anyone who compares Carol Marcus to a rape victim.

309. Karen - May 27, 2013

Seriously, Captain Kirok, you can quit trying to bully me now. I could not be less interested in anything you have to say.

Thanks for the great discussions, guys.

310. CaptainKirok - May 27, 2013

Karen,
I’m not bullying you. I’m disagreeing with you. And if you are unwilling to consider my position, why participate in the conversation to begin with? When one person says that they won’t consider anything another person says, they are admitting their own closed mindedness.

311. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 27, 2013

@Karen

Well said. Only please, not fanservice. I’m a fan, and I wasn’t serviced at all. Fanboy service. Done by Abrams to appeal, according to the costume designer, young male viewers.

Which unfortunately explains a lot.

Very true, Karen. STID was fanboy service, but you could also say it serviced women that are slash fans.

312. Spock's Second Favorite Organ - May 27, 2013

Karen, According to the New York Times almanac, Playgirl, the only magazine that sells erotic images of male beauty to women is outsold by Mother Earth News. Even the magazine Workbench has higher circulation figures than Playgirl! And, according to its editor and chief, half its subscribers are men. Most women could hardly be bothered to turn their head to see a scantily clad man.

The false assumption is that men “stare” out of some kind of “hostility” or “misogyny.” But that assumption is based on a total lack of comprehension of male carnal lust. Like other women, such a pure flesh lust is simply unfathomable to you. Yes you think an Adonis with his shirt off is “cute,” and the image is pleasant for you, but that is nowhere close to being comparable to what happens to a man at the sight of beautiful woman with her top off. You can’t imagine having such a compelling desire to look at a beautiful body, so you falsely assume that there must be an ulterior motive—something involving “woman hating.” Wrong!

Viva, the only other magazine ever even to attempt to sell “beefcake” imagery to women discontinued its centerfold because they determined that the explicitness of such a large nude-male photo only hurt sales! They went out of business anyway. What is the point of including gratuitous images of men when those images are not profitable? By infinite contrast, the fact that Into Darkness contains that image of the Carol Marcus character will, all by itself, increase ticket sales, which increases the bottom line, which is the entire reason why that image is there. Men stare at the image of a beautiful naked, or near naked, woman because they are transfixed by the image. Media deliver such images because male lust makes it is profitable to do so.

This issue is not comparable to equal time for Democrats and Republicans. If women want more “beefcake” imagery they must want it enough to PAY for it. “Beefcake” imagery will be delivered when such imagery SELLS.

As for Kirk not looking away the moment he is told to do so, what . . . is Kirk a dog? Is that why he should immediately obey? Maybe he should roll over and play dead or sit up and beg on command? Maybe she should roll up a newspaper and swat him on the snout saying “bad dog, look away INSTANTLY when I order you to.”

Maybe, NOT obeying is the very thing that sets Kirk apart from every other obedient male in the same situation.

313. Spock's Second Favorite Organ - May 27, 2013

If you want to talk sexism, the degree to which females tend to be singled out for gratuitous nudity is easily matched by the degree to which males tend to be singled out for offhand death. Do a head count of the numbers of males vs. females summarily slaughtered. It’s no contest.

By contrast, you need only follow a female around ominously and the mere threat of violence toward a woman will get the movie re-categorized as a “horror” film.

314. pauln6 - May 27, 2013

Producers know that sex sells and yes, they often will go out of their way to include some even where it distracts from the plot. In Basic Instinct, they had already established that Sharon Stone wasn’t wearing underwear and dozens of spoofs after the movie came out demonstrated that it was possible to do the scene would a full on flash of her unmentionables BUT the scene became so notorious that people flocked to see the move and Sharon Stone got other work off the back of that notoriety. It’s easy to see their dilemma.

I can forgive them bunging in some gratuitous skin as long as it isn’t demonstrative of wider sexism. In this franchise, it is so demonstrative. It would not have mattered if she’d stripped off in a way that was conducive to the plot because women in this franchise are still used primarily as decorative objects, love interests, mothers, wives, girlfriends, and the caring professions (such as the chick-filled medical bays). The fact that this scene played out the way it did is simply a symptom of the archaic attitude that these writers have to the women.

Uhura kisses her man goodbye on the transporter despite the fact that she is actually more qualified (on paper) for the mission than him. Chris Chapel and Janice Rand are so insignificant to the franchise that they should be replaced by the far more popular Cupcake and Keenser. No T’Pau, no Number One and so on. That lack of respect for their female characters is the root of the problem.

315. pauln6 - May 27, 2013

313 Spock’s Second Favourite Organ

I think the writers view the death of a woman as having greater shock value but again, this goes back to a lack of respect for their female characters as officers as opposed to wives, girlfriends, etc.

We’re all aware of this on some level – seriously who, when watching By Any Other Name was taken aback when the black redshirt survived? I don’t know if the writers were intending to make a point but it was a great scene because it slaps you in the face for accepting subconscious sexism and racism.

They should kill more women in the line of duty (as opposed to individual violence as victims) but since they seem very reluctant to feature any female security guards at all, that might be a problem!

316. Danielle Meitiv - May 27, 2013

I was with you until you proudly declared “I am by no means a feminist. As a woman, I’m all for the equal treatment of women. But, I take a pragmatic approach.”

WTF do you think being a feminist means?

317. Phil - May 27, 2013

@308. You are at a point where you are just protesting the injustice you are suffering way to much. It’s not a question of people being closed minded about your embrace of sexism, quite to the contrary, your opinions have been considered, and found lacking. It’s not that hard to figure out, if the activity does harm, then it’s wrong. I’ve said repeatedly, and you have ignored that part, that the context of the scene is the source of the blowback. There are a dozen different ways they could have presented it that would not have batted an eye, but they chose to make Kirk a perv with how they did it. Again, for your position to have even a shred of validity one has to believe that this fictional Starfleet has no code of behavior standards, and I don’t believe that.

Have a pleasant afternoon.

318. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 27, 2013

“because women in this franchise are still used primarily as decorative objects, love interests, mothers, wives, girlfriends, and the caring professions (such as the chick-filled medical bays). The fact that this scene played out the way it did is simply a symptom of the archaic attitude that these writers have to the women.”

What a demeaning sexist statement. So you characterize a full time mother or woman working in a caring profession as being less than someone who handles and uses dangerous weapons, eg Carol Marcus being a weapons expert? Hospitals, clinics etc would be totally bereft without the nursing staff, who, yes, are still predominately women, who do so largely by choice. The way society tends to constantly put down, demean such roles is idiotic and disrespectful.

My husband trained as a nurse (one of the few male nurses at the time in NZ) and even his own family thought he could do better, as in become a doctor – inference being that because he was a guy, he was naturally more intelligent and better suited to being a doctor and because being a doctor meant more money. He did NOT want to be a doctor, because nursing meant that he got to spend more real time with patients and could take care of their very real needs in a more caring, empathetic way than a doctor could. It was always more important to him to just simply being able to sit, hold a patient’s hand and listen which often meant being the difference between that sick person making a good recovery or not.
(Unfortunately, with the advances of patient monitoring technologies along with understaffing, many nurses now find it difficult to always be able to do any REAL nursing).

Superficiality and impatience are so epidemic now. The feminine is so overlooked, undermined and demeaned and we are all dehumanized by ignoring these aspects.

Not everyone can be chief nor is everyone cut out to be chief. That does not make them less of a person or be the object of unfair criticism, discrimination or bullying.

319. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 27, 2013

@ Spock’s Second Favorite Organ

I can understand where you are coming from, but I think you may be mistaken a bit. Here’s where I can agree. Women, and by no means to I pretend to speak for all of us, do tend to have less of a reaction to just only seeing a hot guy. But, please do not say that hot guys are not profitable in the female market. On the contrary, they are very profitable.

Here’s the difference: Women tend to need more than just a hot body and a cute face. A lot of times, from my experiences, women don’t just like to look at an attractive man, but it needs to be more than that, like say a story. That’s why love stories are popular, and they always will be. The dashing prince, the fierce warrior, the distinguished gentleman. The list goes on, and these “men” make A LOT of money off of women.

I think the difference, if there is a difference, is that women want to see you naked after they are interested, while seeing a naked woman causes men to get interested. I’m not trying to boil this down as a generalization, even though it comes off that way. I’m just saying that you are not correct about sexy men being unprofitable in the female market. It’s just that we need more than pictures to stare at (and yes, I’ve heard that Playboy has “articles” too), but once we’ve got that, you can’t give us enough “hot” pictures. :)

Just speaking for myself, I’d like to see a hot shirtless Spock in the next film, but just seeing Zachary Quinto shirtless would not do anything for me. It’s the same guy. I’m sure that Zachary shirtless would look nice, as it has before, but again, doesn’t do much for me. Spock, on the other hand, well there’s a whole story there, and I really like him as a person. And I love him with Uhura. So, that would do something for me (and I am so, so not alone ;)).

Then you have actors that do become sex symbols because of the work they’ve done, i.e. the type of guy they’ve played. Some aren’t even that hot, but the character(s) they are known for playing helps to make them that way. Some really are that hot, and playing various characters just enhances that more. Also, look at boy bands, and serenading singers, and tell me there aren’t teens and women lining up for that asking for an autographed picture, lol. ;)

320. CaptainKirok - May 27, 2013

#317 Phil
Still waiting for that case law example…

321. Spock's Second Favorite Organ - May 27, 2013

315 pauln6
I agree, of course, that Star Trek is and has always been sexist toward women. Carol Marcus in her underwear was ham handed and gratuitous to be sure. Everything you say is true.

Who was taken aback when the black redshirt survived? The woman I saw the scene with who turned to me and said: “See, even the black guy is worth more than the female.” But, you’re right, and she missed the point. If “the writers view the death of a woman as having greater shock value” it is only because the viewers view violence upon women as more shocking. There’s a lot of archaic attitude going on here. Women are, in their own way, more “special” than men, to be more specially treated and protected as compared with the far more “disposable” male. Being less subject to violence, is that solely about disrespecting women?

In addition to being less subject to violence, women are also presumed to be more loving, caring, refined, virtuous, and morally superior. Women are also presumed superior in parenting and when a man and woman are arguing, the woman will be depicted as “right” at least 80 percent of the time. The ManBad/WomanGood bias is also sexist. And woman=good, man=bad underlies WHY in movie imagery you don’t just casually shoot a woman in the head with same indifference and frequency with which you can just casually shoot a man in the head without a second thought and without audience protest.

Anyway, I agree that Star Trek is particularly guilty of disrespecting women. AND, males are the Bad GUYS, about 90 percent of the time. Within the media in general, men are at least as badly treated as women. There is more than one kind of sexism in our world even if the one kind of sexism is the only kind that concerns us.

322. Spock's Second Favorite Organ - May 27, 2013

@Spock/Uhura admirer,
Men and Women see things so differently. (And why apologize for generalizing, how else can such issues be discussed?)

When you say what you say, I hear what you say, AND I hear something else as well. As heard from my male point of view I hear, “a man only gains sex appeal after he has achieved success appeal. Only when a man has performed, achieved, and succeeded his way to extrinsic values, only then does he begin to have some intrinsic value. Yes, I know, Adonises that are billionaires and who save the universe and are superhuman aliens get to have sex appeal, I get that. But THAT IS WHY the males are given all the supper powers and super status. It’s so these males can get the same sexual rise out of women that any ordinary pretty girl gets out men when all she has to do is show a little skin!

So, yeah, women are hot for men, but only if those men are superhuman.

323. Karen - May 27, 2013

@321

I think statistics may show that there are far more violent male offenders than female. So I think most likely popular culture reflects that. However! I am absolutely on board with you that men can be, and are, subjected to gender based discrimination. When it comes to redressing social gender inequality, in some instances the pendulum has swung so far the other way that men are actively being harmed. And boy, you should hear the vitriol that gets spewed my way when I articulate that opinion in some circles! But I don’t care. My battle is for gender equality, end of story. HIstorical abuse of one gender cannot be used to justify current abuse of the other.

Likewise, I take your point about the double standard when it comes to violence against men vs women. For example, I disagree with the ban on women on the front lines. Any woman who wishes to fight for her country should be able to do so. And saying that it’s somehow worse to see a female casualty than a male is offensive to me. I understand that underpinning the objection is a notion of preserving the species — we can afford to lose more men than women from a species survival standpoint. And perhaps that needs to be addressed in the context. But to hold that a woman’s life is more to be protected than a man’s? No. Absolutely not.

There has been a certain historic chivalry towards women due to the inequality between physical abilities of self defence. However, in the modern world, at least in many societies, woman are able to defend themselves with a gun. Not everywhere, mind you, and in those instances where that option’s not available there are problematical issues. Actually, in an attempt to make female characters more proactive and kick ass, popular culture has perhaps done us a disservice. In tv and movies, kick ass women have the script writer on their side.

The other unfortunate fact in play is that the levels of violence against women, both sexual and purely physical, are very high and the perpetrators are almost exclusively male. So that adds a wrinkle to the entire debate.

But I don’t add that caveat to undermine your totally valid points. I mean, men are also victims of domestic violence. Unfortunately, those men are further victimised by a culture that ridicules them if they admit they’ve been significantly damaged by a woman.

It’s all very complicated and sometimes it seems like there’s no way out.

324. reni - May 27, 2013

300 CaptainKirok —

I come from a fine art background, so I tend to analyze film composition more often than not and try to understand why we’re seeing things from a certain perspective or viewpoint and what it means. With this particular shot, we have to remember that Kirk is in fact maintaining face level, eye contact with her off to the side, so he’s not looking at her from below. We are. More importantly her body isn’t straight to him. His view is more of the side of her body. The only straight on view he has is of her face. So why was a below eye level, forward facing body shot shown in the movie if it’s not what Kirk is actually seeing?

While generally a looking up view is empowering, for me it’s only empowering if the person is in control of the situation. Especially if the situation can be read as sexual. Including eye contact and strong body language makes it easy to see a person in a position of power. However this shot, shown from the audience’s POV, does not show Marcus empowered. We know for a fact she doesn’t know about the audience, for her to do so would break the fourth wall. How can she actively engage or maintain eye contact with people who aren’t there? This means she’s not in control of the shot, the view, and what the audience gets to see. The whole time we’re looking at her body, she’s engaged with Kirk. Which is why her head is turned to her left, as he’s off to the side. She isn’t aware the audience is looking at her. Which is why I said the audience is being forced into the role of Peeping Tom. The movie intentionally directs us to look at her, sneak a peek if you will, while she doesn’t know.

The presentation of the content is a bit of problematic. Does that mean I blame JJ? Well possibly, since in the end it’s the director who is painting the ‘picture,’ chose this viewpoint, and delivered the shot.

True, the bodyshot is not as bad as other moments. But it sure doesn’t send a progressive message from TPTB in regards to the treatment of woman’s bodies in film when it comes to fanservice.

I love the arrival of the backup navigator. She gives off such a badass vibe. And I like you can see her guns! I know there’s a theory that she may be Deltan, based on her shaved head. But who knows!

Historically men in skirts is not at all unusual. There have actually been several attempted in the past century to make skirts unisex. However the connotation that it’s a woman’s item is very strong.

Anyway, I know about the mini man dresses from TNG, but when you refer to TMP you’re talking about the neutral colored uniform tunics, right? Personally I like the tunic look. The lack of color actually bothers me more than the design. I wish TMP’s costumes were more vibrant. In regards to TNG uniforms, I can understand the choice to include them and I applaud it. I like them cause it sure would be easy to put them on, especially in an emergency! But I can see why they phased them out, as modern audiences would see them as a dress and judge the show/wearers.

(I tried posting this before but I didn’t see it show up on the page. If I accidentally posted twice, I apologize)

325. Karen - May 27, 2013

@323

I think that underlying everything, when it comes to the relative impact of men lusting after women vs women lusting after men, is that the component of implied and/or potential sexual violence is absent for the objectified male.

Bottom line? A man usually finds the admiration of a woman to be a compliment. It’s an ego boost. And while the same is frequently true of a woman, women are by many many many factors more likely to be the recipients of unwelcome attention, where their boundaries are violated and/or ignored, where they are touched without their permission, discussed without their permission, sexualised without their permission, and threatened with sexual violence or actually have it inflicted upon them.

That, at the end of the day, is what makes the difference. I can’t imagine any man who has to live his life on a daily basis constantly assessing the odds of being attacked for walking alone, or speaking up, or simply doing a job. I was once physically assaulted by a male student because I refused to give him a passing grade in his subject when he hadn’t completed any of the assignments. He could not accept that I, as a woman, had the power to fail him.

This is probably the biggest battle — getting men to fully comprehend what it’s like to be a woman in our culture. It’s not about saying that men are never treated badly, or that women are always blameless and saints. But violence against women is everywhere, in every culture on this planet. At its most extreme, young girls are murdered because they’re trying to get an education. Women are drugged in clubs and raped by men who think they have a right to any woman’s body, by any means. Women are degraded in the most appalling terms in popular music.

And when we protest, when we point it out and say, please don’t do this, it hurts us, we are attacked again. Because it’s more important to protect male privilege than it is to accept that we have a problem.

There is no parity in sexual violence when it comes to men and women. And until every thinking and feeling human being recognises that, and fights against it, nothing will change.

326. Spock's Second Favorite Organ - May 27, 2013

Wow, thanks for the thoughtful response Karen!

327. CaptainKirok - May 27, 2013

#323 Karen
I totally agree with everything you just said in that post. Too bad you don’t care about anything i have to say. I think sometimes people can find some common ground, but only if they try.

328. Spock/Uhura Admirer - May 27, 2013

@Spock’s Second Favorite Organ
“Men and Women see things so differently. (And why apologize for generalizing, how else can such issues be discussed?)

When you say what you say, I hear what you say, AND I hear something else as well. As heard from my male point of view I hear, “a man only gains sex appeal after he has achieved success appeal. Only when a man has performed, achieved, and succeeded his way to extrinsic values, only then does he begin to have some intrinsic value. Yes, I know, Adonises that are billionaires and who save the universe and are superhuman aliens get to have sex appeal, I get that. But THAT IS WHY the males are given all the supper powers and super status. It’s so these males can get the same sexual rise out of women that any ordinary pretty girl gets out men when all she has to do is show a little skin!

So, yeah, women are hot for men, but only if those men are superhuman.”

I hear what you are saying, SSFO. And some women are exactly as you’ve stated, but that’s not all women. There’s the story of the poor, but good hearted, guy that falls for the girl “out of his league,” or of the guy that is “the one” but the girl doesn’t realize it because she thinks she’ll find happiness with the guy that has the higher socioeconomic/looks standing (she usually comes to her senses and rides off into the sunset with the “average guy” that was right for her all along by the end of the story). These men are attractive to women too, so please don’t think that it’s just the superheroes that are pulling women in.

I mean, I love Tony Stark, but I don’t find him to be sexy. The fact that he’s a billionaire genius might make him sexy to some women, but not to all women. He’s kind of an ass, and you end up admiring Pepper for putting up with him (as does he). Still, what I end up liking about Tony is his heart and the fact that he comes through in the end.

Men don’t have to be given all of the super powers and super status to be seen as decent men that are sexy and worthwhile. It’s all in the presentation and the story, in my book. Also, it’s nice to see two equals coming together, where the woman doesn’t always have to be “swept off of her feet,” by the man. That kind of story works really well in my book. I guess that’s why I like S/U so much. :)

329. Phil - May 27, 2013

@320. That’s funny, I picked up three different papers this morning and found all sorts of stuff to read on the subject. Look it up yourself, if you can’t be bothered to keep up on what’s going on in current events, it’s a waste of my time to give you stuff you can’t be bothered to read because it conflicts with your worldview. Again, good luck if you ever find yourself having to defend that worldview in court – you’ll need it.

330. CaptainKirok - May 27, 2013

#328 Phil
My point is that although you might find all kinds of cases and stories about sexual harassment, you won’t find one where an employee strips down in a professional setting without telling the other people who are present, an then succeeds in having them disciplined for noticing.

You’d be far more likely to find cases where people stripped down and then got fired for it.

The comments about my worldview are uncalled for.

331. Karen - May 27, 2013

@325

Thanks to you, too.

The thing is, on its face, the infamous underwear scene is not by any stretch of the imagination the most egregious thing ever to be put on film. But for some reason it’s touched this major nerve with a lot of people, and the ripple effect has provoked conversations on a far, far wider range of issues — although they do still trace backwards to all the things that are unfortunate about the scene. I think the conversations are important. They’re confronting too, and uncomfortable, and there are many many people who’d much rather they were never started.

But they are happening, and that’s worth the abuse … if for no other reason than some people’s attitudes need to be given an airing.

I do feel a bit sorry for the Trek team, though. Whatever their degree of idiocy in their treatment of women, I don’t for a moment believe they are women hating misogynists. Or racists for that matter, despite the short sighted decisions they made with casting BC as Khan. They’ve just shown themselves to be extraordinarily clueless in a couple of key socio-political areas.

At the end of the day, I guess there’s the hope that a bunch of people will emerge from this a bit more aware of some things, and more compassionate.

332. reni - May 27, 2013

Karen (330) —

Yes, to everything you said. I agree about your opinion on the Trek team. The fact this has actually come into mainstream can only open eyes. Hopefully for the better.

333. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 27, 2013

I think someone brought up the entire context of that infamous scene but I guess I was not paying proper attention. It seems that no one else was either.

There certainly seems to be sexism going on alright – misandry levelled at one James Kirk simply because he is an openly, healthy heterosexual male.

Captain Kirk and weapons expert Carol Marcus were having a conversation that was directly related to work, ie she probably had some expertise in being able to safely find out what was inside those torpedoes/how they worked etc. They were walking towards the shuttlecraft. As she entered the craft, followed by Kirk, she somehow segued into talking about his “reputation” and what Kirk’s ex – one Christine Chapel had to say about him – in other words, SHE, CAROL MARCUS began talking to her superior officer about HIS personal sex life. He stops responding and gets back to the issue at hand, ie torpedoes. She then asks him to “turn around” without offering any explanation. When he does turn around, she repeats her command.

At no time, did she offer an apology for her own entirely inappropriate mentioning of his private life while on duty. Nor did she give him a reason as to what she was doing and why he needed to turn around.

It is Carol Marcus who should be written up, not Kirk!

I am female but I do not like discrimination on the basis of sex – period, whether it happens to a man or a woman. Carol Marcus gets a free pass around this site, while Kirk is unfairly slammed because of his supposed inappropriate behaviour. Sure, Kirk might have liked what he saw when he looked, but that is not the point.

Kirk offered Uhura an apology for when he spoke out of turn about Spock (“your boyfriend”).

Yes, although the way Marcus was filmed gave the audience an entire view of her from the feet up, something which Kirk would not have necessarily seen, as he and she were at more or less eye level, it also gave the impression she was higher/better than Kirk, irrespective of whether she was fully clothed or not. Her tone of voice also conveyed that.

I hope she won’t turn out to be like her prime universe counterpart – a self-centered bitch going under the guise of “feminism”.

334. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 27, 2013

Phil – It’s time you STOPPED commenting on a film you have not seen, especially on aspects of the movie that are quite controversial.

You have been rude to me and now to another poster, both of whom have actually seen the movie, unlike yourself.

335. reni - May 27, 2013

300 CaptainKirok

I attempted to leave a longer response to you earlier, but the comment won’t show up (and of course I submitted it twice) so I apologize for being repetitive if they ever reappear.

Basically the way I see it, the shot is not from Kirk’s POV, but the audiences’. If it was from Kirk’s eyes we’d be seeing her body a bit turned to the side, and her face straight on with eye contact. Instead we look up at her body from the audience. It becomes a bit sneaky because as far as the story shows there isn’t anyone standing there that would make the viewpoint be like this. Which means it was intentionally meant to give the best view of her assets. Which is why I said the moment turns us into Peeping Toms. It’s not empowering because, for me, empowerment means she’s in control. Using her character for a bodyshot when she doesn’t know that there’s an audience looking at her means she’s not in control of the moment.

In regards to your other questions.

I love the female navigator. She looks like a badass and perhaps Deltan? In any case I like the various female bridge additions. Did you notice the white haired woman in the long sleeved red dress? Great to see these additions.

I actually don’t mind the tunics in TMP. Kinda boring because of the color palette, my only wish is that they were more colorful. I like the intention behind the skant for the men, but sadly we still live in the 21st (20th I guess since that’s when they made their first appearance) so I can understand why they weren’t accepted since dress/skirt means you’re a woman. Though it’s nice TNG still had hints of a dress/skirt with the formal uniforms.

Ironically as I write this, a TOS parody sketch just appeared on Robot Chicken with Kirk dealing with his space herpes and notifying all the people he slept with. OH LOL, just found out he got the herpes from a tribble.

336. Phil - May 27, 2013

@333. Well, I’ve seen the clip in question, and it does not bother me in the least to comment on it. Further, my initial reaction to is has been more then validated, so I’ll comment as I see fit.

337. Karen - May 27, 2013

@332 Keachick

I appreciate your great affection for these characters and the actors who portray them, but I think it’s important to remember that a fictional character cannot be a misandrist, in the way that a living human being can, any more than the audience can know what a fictional character is thinking in the way a real human being can think.

The discussions arising out of the film have been about the film-makers’ actions and intent and the subsequent results of their decision making processes. Kirk, the fictional character, has been portrayed in a certain light via the writing and directing choices of the people involved. Whatever criticisms are being made are being made of the Trek team, not the fictional characters. And even if the fictional characters are criticised, since they’re not real people that can’t possibly matter.

If there are criticisms are being made of the actors ie Chris Pine and Alice Eve and BC for being part of the storytelling, for not standing up and refusing to perform their roles as written … well … that’s an entirely different kettle of fish.

338. pauln6 - May 28, 2013

Keachik – please don’t misunderstand my approach, which was rather tongue in cheek. Wives, mothers, and medical professionals have great importance in their own right. HOWEVER, where there is a greater focus on one gender in that role over another, I view that as sexist. NuTrek has often featured both mothers and fathers together but has consistently portrayed the women as passive objects while the men (George Kirk, Nero, Sarek, Noel Clarke, Admiral Marcus) are given greater activity, and in the case of Kirk’s dad, greater influence despite being dead. Admittedly, Amanda was given more significance but I think that had more to do with her being representative of Spock’s human half rather than her role as a mother.

TOS characters often acted unprofessionally but I agree that NuTrek characters are far too familiar with their senior officers while on duty. I was a strong critic of Uhura wasting time kissing Spock on the transporter pad, potentially delaying his departure on a vital mission when, in fact, she was better qualified to go on the mission herself in any event. In STiD, she criticises him, while on a mission, for not thinking how upset she’d be if he died when clearly, as a Starfleet Officer, he’s being criticised for doing EXACTLY what a good officer SHOULD do. Once again, the woman is shown as emotional, and unable to separate her relationship from her job, even where lives are at stake. It’s important to note that Kirk struggles to do this too but I don’t consider him to be a good officer either. Sulu seems to be the only stand-out officer at this stage. Chekov is smart but I have reservations about him being a good officer – the original was pretty terrible. One could argue that being promoted to chief engineer despite being an ensign with one years’ experience as a navigator and a few months experience shadowing the chief engineer makes him an exceptional officer but he managed to break warp drive, impulse drive AND thrusters and had NO engineers in the right place to effect repairs so I’m far from convinced.

339. moebetta - May 28, 2013

311- what i woulda said!

340. Jemini - May 28, 2013

337. pauln6
” I was a strong critic of Uhura wasting time kissing Spock on the transporter pad, potentially delaying his departure on a vital mission”

I didn’t see Spock complaining. In fact both the script and the novelization make it pretty clear that he’s the one that initiated the kiss while Uhura was there doing her job (giving him a translation device that is even visible in some screencaps)

341. CaptainKirok - May 28, 2013

Keachick #332 and #333
Those were excellent posts. Thank you for sharing your thoughts in such an articulate and considerate manner.

One thing that this whole thread has made me realize is that Carol Marcus, in this movie, is so similar to Kirk in the first movie.
Like Kirk in the first movie, she sneaks her way onto the Enterprise.
Like Kirk in the first movie, she has some unique insight about the bad guy.
Like Kirk in the first movie, she tells the captain what to do.
Like Kirk in the first movie, she is flirtatious, sometimes in ways that are somewhat inappropriate.
Like Kirk in the first movie, her parent is killed by a bad guy.
Like Kirk in the first movie, she gets to stay on the Enterprise at the end.

She really does seem like a good match for Kirk.

342. Trekkiegal63 - May 28, 2013

Wow, this thread certainly got active during the weekend…

Karen and Spock/Uhura Admirer – I’m glad you liked the links! :)

#321. Spock’s Second Favorite Organ:

As I just said in another thread, hasty generalizations = never a good idea and I feel the strong urge to address something you’ve said in this post. You make a lot of assumptions here, not the least of which is that women are less subjected to violence in film than men because of the ‘shock’ value. Not true.

There is a website called “Women in Refrigerators” – it was first put together by comic book writer Gail Simone to point out the disproportionate number of female heroines (to male heroes) who have been killed, assaulted, seriously injured or ‘depowered’ within comics as a plot device (usually used to spur the male heroes into acts of revenge or blinding hatred for the ‘enemy’). The site features a list absolutely startling in length. The trope was later adopted for all media, not just comics. (It’s interesting to note that Ms. Simone received tremendous backlash when the first incarnation of the ‘Women in Refrigerators’ site was released, so much open hostility, much like we’re seeing on this thread to the idea that the Alice Eve shot was inappropriate).

Even strong, well-rounded female characters conceived for the purpose of combatting the Women in Refrigerator trope fall into the trap of being WiR themselves at times, such as Buffy Summers of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Joss Whedon has been quoted as saying that his idea for Buffy came from viewing horror films where the blonde girl walked down an alley she shouldn’t have walked down to begin with and inevitably got maimed for it. He thought, well, what if there is a blonde that could walk down the alley and kick major butt, walking out triumphant?

While I give him tremendous kudos for that, and for attempting from there on out to write strong women in all of his projects (you go, Whedon, you go!) Buffy, herself, during the course of her who was killed twice and almost raped another.

Another example is Dana Scully of the X-Files (one of my favorite heroines of all-time), who, upon news of the actresses pregnancy, was written mostly out of the second season via ‘alien abduction’ where the ‘aliens’ were shown to perform numerous and evasive ‘experiments’ on her person.

This idea you have that female heroines are treated with ‘kid gloves’… not true, not even a little bit. Instead it’s a rather sad reflection of this idea within the entertainment industry that female heroines are not as interesting as their male counterparts (and therefore not given half the character development, which ties in directly with what PaulN6 is saying and is absolutely correct in saying – female characters are, more often than not, relegated to certain roles disproportionately to their male counterparts) and thus ‘more dispensable’ (Green Lantern writer Ron Marz actually said this and no I’m not kidding about that).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Refrigerators#cite_note-10

343. Karen - May 28, 2013

Heh. And there of course there’s the brain fart that was Dollhouse.

But I get that mileage varies on that one.

344. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 28, 2013

People have stated that misogyny exists in Star Trek and I am saying that misandry also exists. Of course, both have to do with the writers, as in how they present plots and characters. It is also as much about how the viewers relate, respond to the various behaviours of the characters or of one particular character.

The character of Kirk, as in how he is shown, is a *victim* of misandry on the part of many viewers. That is what I am saying. Carol Marcus does not get called out by anyone who claims feminism/sexual equality for her inappropriate and personal comments about Kirk’s love life (bearing in mind that she had only just met Kirk) while on duty. So it seems that “gentlemen never tell” but a woman can…see the double standard.

There is a big difference between what Carol did in the scene preceding the undressing scene and the discussion between Uhura, Spock and Kirk on the shuttlecraft. Carol segued into repeating gossip about Kirk’s personal life, something which had absolutely nothing to do with the competency of either to perform their duties. However, Uhura brought up a problem she had, both personally and professionally, with Spock’s ongoing erratic behaviour. Kirk acknowledged this as well. This scene was the resolution to the conversation that took place earlier in the turbolift between Kirk and Uhura, where Kirk wondered what was going on with Spock.

I do not see how people could think that these scenes could be the same because they are not. Carol Marcus’s reference to Kirk’s personal love life had nothing to do with their professional duties, whereas Uhura demanding discussion about Spock’s behaviour DID have to do with Spock’s professional competency. In other words, Carol’s comments were uncalled for. Uhura’s comments were.

345. pauln6 - May 28, 2013

Keachick – I agree that Carol’s behaviour was over-familiar but NuKirk breeds that kind of familiarity. It’s one of the reasons why I think he makes a very poor leader in the reboot. But Chekov’s rapid and inappropriate promotion gives a further strong indication that the writers have a limited understanding of a military hierarchy and are quite happy to cast all pretence aside for the sake of story convenience. You see it quite a lot in Hollywood blockbusters and while it may be convenient, it does make the plots sillier and more childish. Their treatment of Keenser is another indication – he’s a joke character but from this movie it looks like he is actually the assistant chief engineer i.e. one of the most senior officers in engineering! Scotty treats him with no respect at all and he’s generally portrayed as a skivvy.

Please don’t think I’m letting Spock off the hook for the transporter scene BUT that one scene is counterbalanced by a lot of other stuff for him. As second tier support, Uhura gets less to work with so her inappropriate behaviour takes up a bigger chunk of her screen time.

Also, I’m not saying that she was wrong to challenge Spock on the shuttle; she was wrong to make it about HER. It’s fine to tell him that the risks he’s taking are disproportionate. It’s wrong – so, so wrong – to say that he should think about HER before he makes a risk assessment.

Effectively, Spock’s logical concerns about them serving on the same ship in the last movie are born out by her (or their) behaviour. The writers should be working hard to show that they CAN do it without it affecting their professionalism but tehy seeming to be failing on that front in a big way.

346. Trekkiegal63 - May 28, 2013

#342. Karen:

Oops, forgot about Dollhouse. I was thinking more of Black Widow when I stated Whedon at least makes the attempt to write strong women but you definitely have me on the Dollhouse example *shudder*. To his credit he, at least, admitted he didn’t make the human trafficking correlation when he first conceptualized the show… doesn’t excuse it, however, especially when the ‘volunteer’ aspect became murky.

347. Karen - May 28, 2013

@345

Well, I’m gobsmacked he couldn’t see it. I mean, really?????

I do like Black Widow. And since it seems there’ll be another main female in the next one, I look forward to seeing how he handles that.

348. Phil - May 28, 2013

@344. Overall, I’d agree with your assessment. Earlier in the year I’d conceded the point that as long as professional behavior met standard when on duty, that fraternization off duty could be tolerated. On a five year mission, even with state of the art recreation babies are gonna happen.

Not having seen the movie yet, but having viewed all the teasers, trailers, and spoilers, it seems like everyone is leading with their emotions. Makes me wonder if newly risen from the dead JT Kirk has developed a messiah complex with his crew. If so, that’s creepy at best, and an absolute disaster for future crews – would you follow a captain, given to brash judgments and potential death wishes if you even suspected that the circumstances surrounding his survival even hinted that he might not be able to die?

349. Cody - May 28, 2013

In this increasingly feminist cultural mindset, it seems if we ever see a female character who isn’t tough as nails it’s a cause of controversy. But lets just face it, Carol Marcus is a cool character, and it doesn’t bother me that she’s not Laura Croft. That’s not always needed, and it doesn’t diminish my respect for women. And she is a very strong character in her own way.

350. Trekkiegal63 - May 28, 2013

#347 Karen:

Yup, apparently the story goes he met with Eliza Dushku for lunch one day wherein she complained that women aren’t offered a very diversified range of roles in Hollywood (can’t fault the lady that astute observation) and Whedon, who himself identifies as a feminist, worked with her to come up with an idea where she play a different character every week.

I was as surprised as you when I read in a feminist review of the series somewhere that he didn’t make the connection to human trafficking right away. My first thought… ‘no way, he’s smarter than that! What other category would you classify a show thats premise revolves around taking away someone’s personality and memories, implanting them with false memories and pimping them out once a week?!’

The loss of free-agency and self thing, a la Dollhouse, reminds me of that TNG episode “The Perfect Mate”, which always simultaneously creeps me out and makes me a little nauseous whenever I catch it in reruns (the irony that the actress who played Kamala, an empath, in that episode is also the actress who played Jean Gray, a telepath, in Singer’s X-men movies and one of the most apt examples of the ‘woman in the refrigerator’ trope of all-time, is not lost on me *sigh*).

351. Florence Vaughan - May 28, 2013

Is the Carol Marcus character the same one who later has a relationship with Kirk and produces son “David” ?

352. Michael - May 28, 2013

“351. Florence Vaughan – May 28, 2013

Is the Carol Marcus character the same one who later has a relationship with Kirk and produces son “David” ?”

ROFLMAO!

353. Karen - May 28, 2013

@348 Phil

Well, to be fair, I think part of the story this time was Kirk’s evolution from an overconfident little punk to a more thoughtful, introspective and mature man. I think the way Pike nailed him on his never listening, and then us seeing him listening to Scotty and Spock and Uhura and Chekov, showed us his growth. Absolutely he was out of line in what he did with the Prime Directive. He’d let his power and his authority go to his head — not in a nasty, abusive way, but in a cocky, I can do no wrong and skate out of any crisis kind of way. Which means the little exchange with Bones at the end is kind of a nod to that, I think. I’d say Bones had tried his best to talk Kirk down from his madder moments, and failed, and is now very relieved that the universe has kicked his friend so hard up the arse.

@ 350 Trekkiegal

Yes, to all of that. I did know about the genesis of Dollhouse … but from the beginning I had to question the casting of Dushku. Because I’m sorry, in my book she is very, very limited. I think it’s a shame Amy Acker wasn’t cast in that role because that woman can act up a storm without even trying.

As for X Men, for me the most skin crawlingly, egregious example of sexism if not outright misogyny of late appears in X Men First Class. The use of those female mannequins for whathisface to practice on, the way one of those men actually caressed a naked mannequin breast before the stand in woman was obliterated? I just … shudder.

Finally, harking back to some previous conversations here, might I point out the release of a book called Men on Strike, available via Amazon and elsewhere, about the current state of men in the culture and how all is not rosy. I haven’t read it yet (it’s on order) but I do think it’s an important conversation. Somehow I think we need to find a way to live, as a society, that encourages equality across the board without using the redressing of the inequality balance to exact revenge for historical abuses.

354. Phil - May 29, 2013

@353. Yeah, it makes for great drama, I suppose. And as I’ve mouthed off enough about Kirks character development in this universe I’ll just say it could have been handled better and leave it at that… :-)

355. ME - May 29, 2013

The scene with Carol Marcus put me off because it made no sense and was purely to have a half naked woman in the movie. It actually took me out of the movie for a second because of it’s senselessness.

Kirk being half naked was with two women in the bed so it seemed more objectifying of the women than of him to me.

I agree with the article AND I enjoyed the movie. Imagine that.

356. Karen - May 29, 2013

@354 Phil

Hey, you mouth off as much as you like. *g* That’s the fun of it, re-examining our initial impressions through someone else’s filters. I don’t know about you, but I learn a hell of a lot putting on a different pair of glasses!

357. Trekkiegal63 - May 29, 2013

As for X Men, for me the most skin crawlingly, egregious example of sexism if not outright misogyny of late appears in X Men First Class. The use of those female mannequins for whathisface to practice on, the way one of those men actually caressed a naked mannequin breast before the stand in woman was obliterated? I just … shudder.

So glad to hear that I wasn’t the only one disturbed by that! Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. And have you heard of Singer’s recent twitter diabolical involving the filming of the First
Class sequel? *rolls eyes* What extraordinarily poor taste on his part. He may be a Trekkie, and props to him for having exceptional taste, but I’m a tad disappointed in that young man.

…read the book synopsis. To a certain extent I agree. Equality means equality. The parenting issue is of particular importance in my estimation. My daughter and I have a great relationship, I’d even call us friends, but truly, she’s a daddy’s girl (can’t fault her that, I was one myself). She and my husband, maybe because they are so alike in temperament, are two peas in a pod. It’s important, I feel, that a father’s rights in the case of a divorce or separation be addressed. It is unfair that men are held to different standards. Having said that, I took exception to some of the reviews. People confuse what ‘feminism’ means far too readily. Feminism is not asking for special treatment, it’s asking for equal treatment. It, in and of itself, is not the enemy here. I’d label the genuine problem ‘entitlement’.

My husband (also a feminist) has a term for it. He calls it the ‘me, me’s’ (and this term is not gender specific)… a nod to the cover story on Time magazine this past month.

358. pauln6 - May 29, 2013

349 Cody – No – you are approaching this from the wrong perspective. Starbuck in NuBSG, for example, was tough as nails, but she was also a very flawed character BUT she was one flawed character set against a varied background of many other female characters with different traits, Some were tough, some less so and all with a set of different flaws.

The issue is variety but we also have to take account that these characters are professional women in a dangerous job who receive the same basic training as the men and the same varied specialisms as the men. A degree of toughness is to be expected but let the actresses add their own spin to the gender issue. Uhura has only nominally toughened up for example because she can shoot and fight. In many other ways, Nichelle came across as tougher – she just couldn’t throw a punch.

359. Karen - May 29, 2013

@357 Trekkiegal

Nothing that Singer does would surprise me. But I’ve not heard of this latest screw up. Do tell. *g*

Will have a think about the other stuff …

360. Trekkiegal63 - May 29, 2013

#359 Karen:

Yeah, it shouldn’t have surprised me either. ;)

Let’s coin a new term and say that Singer pulled a Lindelof (this is probably best explained in article excerpt)…

The last time we saw a fairly nude Jennifer Lawrence in scaly, blue body paint was two years ago, when she took on the role of shapely, shiftly, shape-shifter Mystique (five times fast). Since then, Lawrence has ascended to stadium status, so naturally, a new photo of her looking the exact same as she did two years ago is a gargantuan deal. Bryan Singer, director of the next installment in Marvel’s mutant saga, X-Men: Days of Future Past, tweeted a photo of the actress in her costume (is it a costume if there’s no clothes?), and, well, it’s Jennifer Lawrence in blue paint. Only now there’s a certain mystique that surrounds her. See what we did there?

Source: http://bullettmedia.com/article/this-is-what-an-incredibly-famous-jennifer-lawrence-looks-like-in-blue-body-paint/

361. Karen - May 29, 2013

You know what? I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but I’m less offended by that than by the Marcus scene. I mean, I can see what he’s doing and why — maybe it’s the context. She’s at work, having her makeup touched up. She hasn’t been deliberately posed by the director in a manner that reduces her to a pair of tits.

Honestly? On balance, I’ll have to reserve judgement on this one ’til I see how she’s dealt with in the film. Who’d’a thunk it???

OTOH, as I continue to convalesce after totally screwing my neck, can I just say how amazingly awesome the female lawyers are on Law and Order? Once the producers were confronted with their gender bias of the first few years, they really lifted their game. I wanna be Abby Carmichael when I grow up. She is phenomenal!

362. John - May 30, 2013

The part where you say the scenes in ‘Star Trek’ 09 were acceptable because they made sense was, to me, rather bullshit.

Uhura’s changing scene was in the film for the exact same reason as Marcus': for the horny males in the audience. Yes, she was in her private quarters and all, but I’m sure I can find an in-universe reason to justify Marcus’ changing. If the gratuitousness of the scene is what makes it sexist then how about the scene in the new movie where two Catian women were sleeping with Kirk. Two women with no other role to play in the movies, just there to be sex objects. The scene is of zero importance besides Kirk’s phone ringing. How’s that less sexist? At least Dr. Marcus has a purpose and a role to play in the rest of the story as a CHARACTER.

Then again, there’s plenty of sexism in Uhura’s role in the story, in my opinion as well. If you remove the scenes related to her relationships with Kirk and Spock, you have almost nothing left but her action scene in this movie – which begins with her and Spock bitching each other out on the craft. That, in my opinion, is not really very ‘progressive’ – just trading one problem for another. There’s also the fact Saldana’s sex appeal is played up to such a degree that most of the marketing material makes her a new third main character over Bones.

There’s a lot of ‘sexism’ in these movies, and to be frank a lot of it ranges on what individuals percieve as sexist. I know two feminists, both of whom are active and volunteer and such – one thinks it’s a waste of time for people to be offended on this and the other cried misogyny and rape culture. ‘Sexism’ is a word that very much depends more on who’s using it than any actual definition, in my opinion.

That said, I don’t really see why people who knew this scene would be in the movie (it was in half of the trailers) expected anything else. Star Trek has contained ‘sexism’ since it’s inception, and while I’m not saying people have no reason to be angry per se, I think this PARTICULAR EXAMPLE is overstated when there’s been many similar incidents that have gone overlooked.

I hope that makes sense.

(Also, the title? Come on now. Sexy AND Sexist!)

363. With Fans Like These... - May 30, 2013

A hundred years ago, women were arrested for showing too much leg at the beach. Today, there’s a chorus of women who want to go back to those days. Gene portrayed women on Star Trek as beautiful and professional. I don’t see that showing Carol Marcus changing has anything to do with sexism. Besides, this is Kirk’s future woman… They are going to have a son together… Is it not OK for her to tease the poor bastard, or is teasing a potential mate wrong and bad and sexist now too? So sick of petty, whiny non-issues that get blown up by people who have nothing better to do.

364. With Fans Like These... - May 30, 2013

…the fact that there’s an article and 360 posts about this non-issue, tells me it’s time to take my leave of Trekmovie.com for at least the next year or two, until there is some new Star Trek news for the so-called “fans” to whine, and moan and complain about! You’ve all been quite entertaining… A constant reminder of why I never tell people I’m a Star Trek fan! Caio!

365. Trekkiegal63 - May 30, 2013

#361. Karen:

Yes, the Eve shot is more upsetting for me as well. For two reasons, one is that I’m more invested in Trek than X-men thus I expect better of it, in a way (though I do love X-men, especially the themes of adaptation/natural selection… what can I say, biologist through and through, lol) and two because I know enough about the character Mystique to know she prefers to be in what she considers her ‘natural’ state over being forced to change her form and hide that she’s a mutant.

Mostly my reaction to the Singer thing was to roll my eyes. Tad juvenile of Singer to try and garner fan interest that way (as if he needed to garner fan interest, not only does this new X-men venture feature the First Class cast back in action, but Stewart and McKellen are going to be in it, too – I’d go to a film just to see those two great actors on screen together again more than I would a shot of Jennifer Lawrence au natural but covered in blue).

366. Jovius the Romulan - May 30, 2013

363, 364: Here’s the point -> .

And you’re all the way over here -> x

Did you even read the article to see why it was an issue?

367. Jovius the Romulan - May 30, 2013

“As for X Men, for me the most skin crawlingly, egregious example of sexism if not outright misogyny of late appears in X Men First Class. The use of those female mannequins for whathisface to practice on, the way one of those men actually caressed a naked mannequin breast before the stand in woman was obliterated? I just … shudder.”

I’d argue that says more about the character’s misogyny more than anything.

368. Karen - May 30, 2013

@367

I would bet you my house that yet again the men involved in crafting the film had no idea, couldn’t see there might be a problem, were totally blind to what they were doing. If they wanted to make a point about their characters’ misogyny then that would’ve been a point. Instead it was utterly casual and unremarked upon. It was gross. Bottom line? It was a conscious choice to use naked stand in women. They chose to inflict male physical violence on naked stand in women. They could’ve used male mannequins without changing one iota of the scene’s purpose.

@ 365

Oh yes, McKellen and Stewart are a fabulous team!

369. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 30, 2013

Actually I think that people, including myself, may have been missing a very important point about that scene. It speaks to who Kirk is fundamentally.

Carol Marcus, while segueing into making personal comments to him about his love life, chose to undress/get changed with him present in the same room, albeit with his back turned. This indicates to me that, despite his “reputation” which she commented on, she inherently TRUSTS him to NOT even attempt to sexually proposition her. He turned round and looked and showed more surprise than anything else and that was only because she had not clarified why she wanted his back turned towards her.

In other words, she clearly believed that this so-called lecherous, horndog punk, could be TRUSTED. She was proved correct. Looking, of itself, is not a crime. Turning right around, moving towards her…would have been, and a serious one at that.

370. Cuphes - May 30, 2013

How to make the scene not sexist?

Kirk turns around, we keep the camera on his back, then he turns around and we see all see she has changed.

Once the camera is on her, the whole point of the scene is simply to see her in her underwear. Period.

371. Karen - May 30, 2013

@370 Cuphes

Ah, the elegance of simplicity!

Yes.

372. Jovius the Romulan - May 31, 2013

368: I agree with you about a number of things, but will respectfully disagree here. The scene, as I recall seeing it in theatres, made people cringe or scoff in disbelief. And yes, it was unremarked upon because… let’s face it… most men in 1962 were pretty damn sexist by today’s standards.

369: Everyone has a different interpretation of this scene, I suppose. The way it is filmed, however, makes it seem like Kirk is a peeping Tom… yet again. (Which made me cringe in the previous film as well.) The scene is contrived fanservice, in the end, and does disservice to both the characters of James AND Carol.

373. Phil - May 31, 2013

Here is a different perspective. The whole video is good, but skip ahead to about 5:30. A tip of the hat to Sir Patrick, he seems to get it.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/set-phasers-on–hug—sir-patrick-stewart-s-kind-gesture–video–003841893.html

374. Trekkiegal63 - May 31, 2013

#373 Phil:

My respect and admiration of Stewart grows every time I hear him speak. Truly an outstanding man and actor. If only more people shared in but half his wisdom.

Thank you for sharing the link. :)

375. Gorned - May 31, 2013

Why do women have so many hangups with this scene? Is it because you have so many “hang-downs?”

376. pauln6 - May 31, 2013

Did people make the assumption that Kirk had shagged Chapel and that was why she left? I have to admit, I didn’t make that assumption because he didn’t remember her name. I think that Kirk, even if he is a womaniser, wouldn’t have have forgotten the name of a crewman from his own ship that he’d shagged. He’s a pr*ck but not that much of a pr*ck. I think Chapel had just reported her observations about his reputation rather than being an active part in it!

377. Karen - May 31, 2013

@372

Why use the term fanservice? That implies that only men/boys are fans, because the Trek team sure as hell didn’t include that scene to appeal to the broad female demographic. And there are many many women fans of the franchise.

378. Karen - May 31, 2013

@376 Pauln

I think that exchange was clumsily written. Possibly ambiguous. But I have to say I did get the impression that Kirk was supposed to have had a hook up with her. It was in the context of his ‘reputation’. And yeah, more stupid crap from the male writers. I mean, they want Chapel out of the way because of stuff from Classic Trek, but there were so many ways they could have handled it. I mean, hey! She could have been a really fabulously competent head nurse on the Enterprise, who wasn’t interested in either male lead.

But no, she had to be defined by sex.

379. Karen - May 31, 2013

@373 Phil

Wow, thanks so much for that. Stewart stood up and fought for the women in the TNG cast, against Roddenberry’s sexism. (Yes, R was totally a sexist, creatively and personally.) He is a totally class act from head to toe, Stewart. And while it makes me mad, the truth is we need men like him, of his stature, to stand up and call out the crap. Because he’s less likely to be abused for it, whereas women who dare open their mouths are automatically abused.

380. GGReeves - May 31, 2013

The sexist scene is when, in enemy territory en route to capture possibly the most dangerous man in the galaxy Uhura is nagging Spock about their relationship.

The only thing really wrong with Ms. Eve in her undies is how badly it was filmed…no slow, sneaky reveal.

381. Jovius the Romulan - May 31, 2013

Karen: I refer to this definition, which says it can be titillation of any kind — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_service

Totally agree on Chapel and Rand. Why are they discarding female characters that featured somewhat regularly on the show, albeit not too well written, instead of making them better characters than they were before? Missed opportunities, seriously. And yeah, I don’t think we need more female characters that are defined by their attraction to men. Even Chapel fell somewhat prey to that, though at least her crush on Spock was one-sided and kind of cute.

No secret Roddenberry was no more enlightened than the guys you see on Mad Men. In one example, he cast the part of Yeoman Smith in “WNMHGB” simply because he wanted to hook up with the model playing her (who had no acting experience whatsoever). Ughughugh, it made me feel dirty just reading about that. But evidently, Majel was able to look past that in their relationship. All the power to her I guess.

382. pauln6 - June 1, 2013

378 Karen

What’s sad is they did exactly the same thing to Denher in the comic adaptation of Where No Man Has Gone Before. Her absence meant that there were no women in that story at all. It was appalling, especially as they could have replaced her with Helen Noel.

I still hope that Chapel left because an earlier opportunity came up to head out to find Korby and this had nothing to do with Kirk at all. After all, she wasn’t a nurse, she was a research biologist who took a position as a nurse on Enterprise as a quick way to get on a ship (in the sixties nurses didn’t have extensive medical training like they do today). Why remain a nurse at all if it isn’t to get out into deep space? In that case, they might also do a comic adaptation of What Are Little Girls Made Of – maybe with Korby’s robot crew manning Christine’s new ship.

383. Karen - June 1, 2013

@381

Well, she had no leg to stand on, given that she was the other women while he was already married. And yes, he was an unrepentant womaniser and wholly sexist. But I can put that aside for all that’s great about classic Trek.

As for Spock and Christine in classic Trek, even though what they reduced her to was painful, at least he treated her with absolute sensitivity and dignity.

@382 pauln6

Really? I didn’t know that. And it’s horrible. Sometimes I think we’re going backwards so damn fast …

And here’s a link to the latest dust up in the wider spec fic field.

Sigh. And sigh. And sigh.

http://samhenderson.livejournal.com/213299.html

384. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 1, 2013

Yes, it is as much about interpretation as anything else. I am not sure we are going backwards, just perhaps trying to find a middle ground, beginning with both men and women being more honest about how they view their own sexuality and that of others.

Kirk a peeping tom? Not really. Genuine peeping toms set out to peep into the privacy of others. It is deliberate, using zoom lens cameras, climbing trees and other crap to get the best peepy vantage points… What Kirk did was not. He saw, incidentally, (ST09) Lt Uhura undressing and looked, a) because he is male and b) just as important, he was LISTENING to what Uhura was telling Gaila. In STID, he turned around because Carol had not given him a proper legitimate reason not to. He was surprised at first, but kept looking because he was surprised and male. This does not make him a peeping tom or a misogynist.

Let’s just reverse those scenes – it was Kirk who was in the process of getting changed and was wearing nothing but undies. Do you honestly think that Carol or Uhura might not have peeked just a little? Yes, in all likelihood, YES! That does not make those women peeping thomasinas or misandrists.

Let’s cut with the hypocrisy here!

385. Michael Towns - June 1, 2013

Wow, are we still debating this? ;)

386. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 1, 2013

Because this is what the thread is about…

387. Michael Towns - June 1, 2013

I know…I just figured it would peeter out or something…. :)

388. Jovius the Romulan - June 1, 2013

pauln6: Yeah, I kind of cringed when I heard she was non-existent in that story. What a missed opportunity. (To get rid of that stupid “women professionals” line, for one.)

Karen: You are quite right, I’m just saying that despite some of the ways he marginalized her personally, she seemed to get past that when they settled down and became monogamous.

The thing that bugs me the most is that the team likely see Chapel as “unimportant” since Spock is taken in this universe, so they wrote her out in one line. Blargh. There was so much opportunity to show her as a woman of strong convictions without needing any unrequited love subplots. Here’s hoping for an appearance in the next movie by her or Rand.

389. Marshall - June 1, 2013

@363 With fans like these-

Actually, there is no reason to think that baby David will show up in this timeline. Things are WAY different now. I mean hell Spock actually wants to be with Uhura in this one. While we might expect Kirk and Carol to hook up and have a baby, I’m actually thinking that’s not gonna happen this time around.

To be honest I thought her and Bones kinda had a little something something between them in the film ;)

I’m hoping at least there are no babies heading toward the Enterprise. We already have to deal with Uhura getting pissy with Spock because of relationship problems *eyeroll* and Kirk supposedly scaring Chapel off with his playboy ways. I wouldn’t mind seeing Carol with Bones. If Trek needs a romance in the films, I think that would have the potential to be the most interesting IMO. Which is interesting, seeing as it was something completely unexpected.

390. John - June 2, 2013

It was gratuitous and unfortunate, but didn’t go as far as offensive. Just some 21st century, everyday sexism creeping into a future which is supposed to be free of that kind of thing. Possibly a function of the fact that the writing/directing/production team of 13 has only 2 female members.

And just to reiterate the important point made by Danya on the author’s comments:

“I am by no means a feminist.” … “I’m all for the equal treatment of women.”

If you believe in the equal treatment of women then you are, by definition, a feminist.

391. pauln6 - June 2, 2013

Well I’m a feminist. 13 men and 2 women is coincidentally the same ratio as the characters. Is there a connection?

The ongoing comic this month shows signs of improving though. All male security guards, an almost completely male Vulcan delegation, and an all-male Romulan senate is down to the artist but a few more women, including Carol, feature as part of the story itself.

392. Karen - June 2, 2013

@388 Jovius

Oh yes, re: Chapel. I mean, how much more blatant can you get? If she can’t be portrayed in relation to Spock, then she has no agency and we can get rid of her. I have a headache from banging my head on the desk … *g*

Oddly enough, I’m still trying to work through why Bones’ interaction with Carol doesn’t set my teeth on edge. He called her sweetheart, he made the crack about the blonde and the deserted planet … and yet my skin’s not crawling. Is it because it’s him? His personality? Is it because he has never once given off a pervy vibe, the way Kirk has?

393. reni - June 2, 2013

Some kind artist redid the scene for us. Now this is what should have been in the movie.
http://therealmcgee.tumblr.com/post/51970343878/so-i-was-talking-to-my-friend-about-role-reversal

394. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 2, 2013

Perhaps earth in the 23rd century is actually short on human females. There are now more men than women in the world today…who knows, what if what is happening to unborn females in many countries continues unabated, only to get worse? Scary thought that…

I recall an episode on Boston Legal where Shirley Schmidt referred to the “Female Holocaust”…

And you are all concerned because we might get to see an attractive young woman in her underwear… get real.

I am so tired of this crap.

395. Ash - June 2, 2013

@392 Karen

It’s funny you mention that thing about it not being the same when Bones calls her sweetheart. I suppose for me, even though he can be grumpy and childish (especially when it does to Spock lol) I see him as the most adult and responsible figure on the ship. He’s like a surrogate big brother to Jim (who IS very childish) and a grown man who as been married before. He also (probably) has a daughter, and he would want any man to treat her with respect. You know when he calls Carol “sweetheart” it’s not a come on. While they were working on the torpedo you could tell he respected her and took her order.

I don’t want to sound like I think Kirk is a total perv and completely irresponsible, but compared to Bones he still has a lot of maturing to do. Bones seems to have that old school way of treating women. Probably opening doors for them and pulling out their chair. Not that he thinks they can’t do it themselves, but he was raised to be a gentleman.

I’ve noticed a surprisingly large amount of people say that they’d like to see Carol with Bones, and I actually agree. I mean it’s more likely she will end up with Kirk, but I thought the little flirting/banter between her and McCoy was adorable :) it’s definitely something I’d like to see more of. Carol was a great addition to the crew. We could use more brilliant ladies on the Enterprise!

396. Ash - June 2, 2013

Oh also, agree 100% about Chapel. To be honest I would have liked to see her get Spock in this timeline. They would have made a cute couple.

Even if she wasn’t his love interest though I wish they would have included her. She was more than just a woman crushing on Spock. I though she was a great character and many people asked for her to be brought in. Maybe in the next one :)

397. Phil - June 2, 2013

@394. There seemed to be plenty of female civilians wandering around…….

@393. Shouldn’t the Delta be a bit to the left, or is that just to obvious?.. …:-)

398. Karen - June 3, 2013

@395 Ash

My only problem with that is Kirk is supposed to be around 30 by now, isn’t he? I mean, if he was early 20s I could maybe accept the juvenilia. But not at his current age. Bones is surely no more than @10 years older than him. I totally agree he’s a big brother figure – a mother henny big brother! *g* – but the whole frat boy thing, which was bearable in the first film, has worn out its welcome now, some 4ish years later.

Or maybe I’m expecting too much? *g*

Either way, I too like the idea of Marcus with Bones.

399. Curious Cadet - June 3, 2013

@392. Karen,
“Oh yes, re: Chapel. I mean, how much more blatant can you get? If she can’t be portrayed in relation to Spock, then she has no agency and we can get rid of her.”

You know, it’s funny, I had not thought of that. But you’re absolutely right. Chapel is a problem given the relationship they set up with S/U. The reality is Chapel really had very little to do in TOS. In fact wasn’t she introduced as Roger Korby’s girlfriend? And then just stayed on as the nurse when he turned out to be an android? But she never really had a life outside of pining for Spock, did she? And I don’t recall her ever having a pivotal role in any episode. Lets face it she was only in the series because she was Roddenberry’s mistress. That doesn’t mean Abrams couldn’t do more with the character, but it would mean they have to be more creative than simply recasting the character and switching up her background. Actually I’m surprised these guys didn’t go for it … They could have had some great cat fights between Uhura and Chapel over Spock. Seriously though, they can barely give the 7 principal cast members enough screen time as it is. And now they’ve added an 8th in Marcus, who ended up being under utilized … I can’t imagine adding a ninth in Chapel, or Rand, as anything more than a bit part and that’s not fair to the characters either. So they swapped Chapel for Marcus, whom they found more interesting (and the reality is, so do I). So I really can’t fault them for that. But I can fault them if the only reason they did that was to set up a love interest for Kirk.

——————–
” I’m still trying to work through why Bones’ interaction with Carol doesn’t set my teeth on edge.”

You know it’s funny you bring that up. Do you remember the Shore Leave episode scene which is almost an exact duplicate of this one? Where Yeoman Barrows changes out of her torn uniform and asks Bones to turn his back? Well Bones tries to sneak a peak too, but its completely different. There’s something innocent about that depiction that is missing from the Kirk/Marcus scene. And I think a lot of it has to do with the character and actor. McCoy is generally depicted as fatherly, even in this universe, you know he does not mean any offense and has the utmost respect for women, whereas Kirk is depicted as immature frat boy, who we don’t really know how he thinks about women. Certainly Shatner was in many similar circumstances, but the more mature Kirk manages to be less offensive in his glances and familiarity with women.

Of separate discussion is the fact that Barrows was accosted by Don Juan twice on a planet that brings your fantasies to life. What was that about!?

400. Kev - June 3, 2013

I think its purpose was to show Kirk was interested in her, so it really didnt bother me that much, given who she was supposed to be.

Also they really dropped the ball by saying who she was too early by the way, also why a tacked on british accent?

As the original actress was Australian I believe and there is quite a difference between that accent and the english ones

and she did have her leg broken by you know who.

So there’s not much you can do with a fricking broken leg once that happens.

and also compaired to europe were a bunch of prudes and to even get offended by this is just silly.

so this just falls under the heading of get a life for me, its not a big deal.

and yes its tacked on and pointless but whatever, would have made far more sense if Kirk just barged into her room after finding out who she was and then saw her like this.

its the execution that was screwed up, not the idea.

401. Trekkiegal63 - June 3, 2013

*facepalm* You know what I would like to see with Carol… her utilizing her scientific knowledge to the betterment of a mission, her developing friendships within the crew prior to jumping into a relationship with anybody, maybe even showing her meeting Uhura in one of the rec rooms for some yoga, and Rand for a nice spot of tea.

No offense to anyone in particularly here, why does the second female added to the crew with more than two lines automatically get paired off within fandom as if it’s impossible to imagine a woman being on screen who isn’t *gasp* in a relationship, be that relationship with Kirk or Bones? As you all have pointed out, this is an alternate universe, she doesn’t have to go with either. I find the mentality of ‘okay, we have another woman onboard the Enterprise, now which guy is going to get her’ a little disturbing, to be entirely honest, and it proves my point that we’re conditioned to view ALL female characters this way. This automatic association of a female character with a romantic subplot. Makes me wonder, if Carol Marcus had been Carl Marcus, would everyone still be rushing to pair him up? ‘Who will get Carl, Rand or Chapel?’ No, we don’t see this with the menfolk, because there are several single men on the Enterprise and I don’t see anyone rushing to pair Chekov with the other female navigator we caught a brief glimpse of in STID. Or Scotty. It’s only the female characters that are spoken of as if they were prizes to get passed around to the most ‘deserving’ male.

Question to no one in particular… would Carol still be an interesting character to you if she picked neither Kirk or Bones? What if she wants to focus on her career at this point in her life, or what if she just suffered a bad breakup prior to the events of STID and wants to go the solo road for a bit… would she still have your interest? If your answer to that is no, I think its time for some inner reflection.

As for Chapel… doesn’t matter why she was placed on the Original Series. The point was she was there as one of the very few recurring female roles. And since Star Trek has always espoused the values of equality, tolerance and social progression, now would be the perfect time to update her as more than a woman with a crush or a woman chasing her man across space. In ST:TMP Chapel had gone on to become a doctor and was actually running the Enterprise sickbay prior to Kirk ‘drafting’ Bones out of retirement. So there you go. If Chapel could have an updated role in 1979, and with just one or two lines of dialogue between Kirk and McCoy at that – took a matter of seconds to establish this, I see no reason why they couldn’t give her more than ‘someone Kirk doesn’t even remember’ in 2013.

Just saying.

402. Trekkiegal63 - June 3, 2013

From the ST:TMP transcript (found this more for me than anything… wanted to prove to myself my memory hasn’t gone entirely down the toilet as age is starting to creep up on me in the most distressing ways…):

McCOY: Well, Jim, I hear Chapel’s an MD now. Well, I’m gonna need a top nurse, not a doctor who’ll argue every little diagnosis with me. And …they’ve probably redesigned the whole sickbay, too. I know engineers. They love to change things.

403. Jovius the Romulan - June 3, 2013

Curious Cadet: Not quite. From Memory Alpha: “Chapel abandoned a career in bio-research for a position in Starfleet, in the hopes that a deep-space assignment would one day reunite her with her fiancé, Dr. Roger Korby – a scientist of renown, incommunicado from his expedition to Exo III since 2261.”

Karen: True, there was that line about him being trapped in a desert with a gorgeous woman. Personally though, I saw it as a father-daughter sort of chemistry and she clearly had control of the situation and not him. I’d like to see more banter between them in the next movie, but not as a romance. I can see /why/ people would ship it, but I just don’t agree. Both because, as mentioned before, she doesn’t have to be taken in this timeline (were her and Kirk ever together?) and I think it’d work better as two fellow science officers who find common ground as friends. Like Trekkiegal, I want to see more of her intellect at work next go around.

Kirk is 26 in this movie, born in 2233 and the year now being 2259. In TOS, he was the youngest Starfleet captain at 32, which Chris Pine is now in real life.

Kev: Bibi Besch was Australian but portrayed Carol with an American accent in Star Trek II. Alice Eve is capable of it as well, most recently showing it in “The Raven”. Not sure why they didn’t ADR her dialogue when the scene explaining her English accent was cut… very odd. For that matter, very odd that they contrived an explanation at all when, again, Ms. Eve could have just upheld continuity to begin with! *head scratch*

So now we have an English Carol Marcus with an overtly American father and no explanation as to why. Eh. Explanation in… next movie? :|

Trekkiegal63: Spot on as always. Chapel deserves more screen time, because the few snippets of personality I got from TOS left me wanting more. As far as unrequited love threads on television series go, it wasn’t too badly done and Spock was respectful of and trusted her. Again, no need for any stupid love triangle stuff, they could just be portrayed as friends who respect each other professionally in this new timeline.

As I said earlier, I just want Carol as a more important part of the team. It gave me hope at the end of the movie that in the year since Enterprise started being rebuilt, Kirk had not slept with her and picks her as a crewmember because of her expertise… not because she’s a pretty little blonde.

404. Jovius the Romulan - June 3, 2013

Correction… Bibi Besch was Austrian-American. So there you go.

405. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 3, 2013

#403 – “Kirk had not slept with her and picks her as a crewmember because of her expertise… not because she’s a pretty little blonde.”

There you go…buying into the stereotypical misnomer that, if you sleep with someone who also happens to be a pretty little blonde, you can’t possibly be also objectively aware of their expertise/skills at their chosen profession. Well, that is such a narrow minded attitude and clearly one that neither Spock or Kirk would share.

Lord, give me strength.

406. Jovius the Romulan - June 3, 2013

… you cannot be serious.

407. Karen - June 3, 2013

And here’s someone explaining the broader problem brilliantly.

http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/old-men-yelling-at-clouds-sfwa-lunacy/#comments

Trekkiegal:

You’re right, and I was imprecise. I have no problem with Carol not hooking up with any of the guys. The last thing we need is yet another female character being defined by her relationship to men. But I must also confess that I am a not-so-secret romantic, and I do love me some happily ever after. OTOH, I don’t auto-ship every male/female character in fiction. Some work brilliantly as friends, and that should be celebrated more often.

And yes, this would be me trying to have my cake and eat it too. Crumbs? What crumbs?

Curious Cadet, I still think the Shore Leave thing is a problem and for the same reasons. However, the bigger problem is how Marcus was filmed. I mean, that shot was pure porn. It was demeaning. At least the TV standards code meant they couldn’t do a porn shot.

The most heartening thing about all of this is how much attention it’s getting. Yes, the whiny fratboys are still spitting their dummies and stamping their feet, but at long, long last the conversation is getting away from them. So we might well be at a crossroads, in a good way.

408. Phil - June 3, 2013

@406. Sad thing is, she is.

409. Basement Blogger - June 3, 2013

Actress Alice Eve is a human being who is intelligent, has emotions and aspirations. She’s also a beautiful woman. So sue me if I find the scene where she changes in front of Kirk to be sexy.

Star Trek Into Sexiness

As the article points out, Star Trek has a long history of being a sexy show. One could point out many episodes of the show attempting to appeal to a human’s sexual desires And as the article points out, it went both ways. One of the big jokes in the Trek parody Galaxy Quest (2009) was the need for the captain to rip off his shirt and show his muscular chest and arms. And check out the fan film Star Trek Continues, “Pilgrim of Eternity”. (posted on this site) Vic Mignogna as Kirk shows off his bare chest in front of a young female officer. Clearly a nod to the sexy nature of the show.

But is the scene gratuitous? Well like Star Trek, the answer is not black and white. Let’s not be naive. STID is a tentpole movie. And we know who Hollywood can depend on to got to the multiplex. Teenagers, specifically teenage males. And judging by the Twilight box office, teenage girls. Reason for the Spock-Kirk romance, um, strike that. Spock-Uhura romance. But I digress, the above scene has an appeal to young men and we can say, lesbian women assuming they find Ms. Eve attractive.

But does the scene have a purpose? Yes. We can’t forget that Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) will bear Kirk’s child. The scene is set up for Kirk (Chris Pine) to show he’s attracted to her. (Remember she disrobes in his presence. He doesn’t order her to take off her clothes.) It’s a playful scene with humor designed to show a spark between the two. If it starts out with a sexual spark so be it. Alice Eve researched her role by watching all the TOS episodes. She seemed to focus on Kirk. She probably did that to get the attraction she would have for him.

The Human Adventure Continues …

Star Trek has always been about the human condition. Part of our humanity is the act of sex. It’s a driving force in our actions. It can be ugly. It can be an act of pleasure. But it can be wonderful expression of love. If Star Trek appeals to our sexual nature then it reflects our human desires.

Actress Alice Eve studied at Oxford. She’s a fine actress.(Charming in “She’s Out of My League.” ) And as I have said before she’s a human with aspirations, intelligence and emotions. Her character Dr. Carol Marcus will hopefully find her inspiration in solving galactic starvation through her ingenious way of terraforming. And yes both Alice Eve and
Dr. Carol Marcus are beautiful women.

410. Trekkiegal63 - June 3, 2013

#408. Basement Blogger:

For your one article, I can point you to more than a few dozen more that disagrees with the assessment that the Alice Eve shot served a higher purpose, including, but not limited to: New York Magazine, Screen Invasion, What Culture, Coming Soon, Hollywood.com, thinkprogress.org, Culture Mass, and Actress Felicia Day’s blog where she reviewed Trek, to name a few (these links and excerpts, and many more links of the same vein, on my blog).

411. Trekkiegal63 - June 3, 2013

#403. Jovius the Romulan:

As I said earlier, I just want Carol as a more important part of the team. It gave me hope at the end of the movie that in the year since Enterprise started being rebuilt, Kirk had not slept with her and picks her as a crewmember because of her expertise… not because she’s a pretty little blonde.

Hear, hear! Well said! :)

…agree with you on Chapel as well.

412. Basement Blogger - June 3, 2013

@ 384

Keachick,

You and I have some strong battles in the past but let me say this to you,

You are right this time. And don’t let any of those people who attack you personally, discourage you.

413. Phil - June 3, 2013

@409. Quit nibbling on the bait. We have a few people around here who see defending the scene as some higher calling in the culture war or striking a blow against the nanny state, whatever the hell that means. I’ve asked a simple question before of this mind set, that I wasn’t trying to convince someone of my way of thinking, but could they at least try to understand what the issue was, and I could not even get that. There’s no talking to someone who’s blinded by that level of dogma….

414. Karen - June 3, 2013

Can you spell out your blog url, Trekkiegal? Don’t link, you’ll have your post deleted. I have to repost something because of that.Pain in the neck.

415. Trekkiegal63 - June 3, 2013

#412 Phil:

Quit nibbling on the bait.

In my defense I severely cut my original draft of that post. :)

I know. Truly, I do. But the utter selfishisness and entitlement surrounding what a few (definitely not all *nods to you, Jovious, Curious Cadet and Pauln6 for being good guys*) ‘guys right to a peek show’ at the expense of the female psyche kind of gets to me. It’s difficult to let roll off my back.

I do wonder if BB read about Eve’s five-months-of-only-eating-spinach diet that she went on prior to the filming of Into Darkness. Seems to me that scene he so covets nearly came at the cost of her health.

But yes, you’re right. I have severe doubts that certain individuals who post on this site will ever be able to look past their own ‘needs’ (and I use the term ‘needs’ lightly).

BTW Phil, was in San Diego this weekend for the Rock N’ Roll marathon on Sunday. Went to a Padres game Friday night that went into 17 innings. Left Petco well past midnight. Was remembering a conversation we had ages ago on their chances this season, don’t want to speak too soon and jinx them but they seem to be on their way up from the pit to which they had fallen. Keeping my fingers crossed for them anyway. ;)

416. Trekkiegal63 - June 3, 2013

#413 Karen:

Sure Karen, it’s trekkiegal63[dot]blogspot[dot]com. :)

417. Aly - June 3, 2013

Just wondering, why does everyone seem so sure that Carol and Kirk will have David (or any child for that matter) in this timeline?? I’m not saying that she and Kirk won’t be love interests, but something tells me babies won’t be showing up in any films soon. Unless you’re going by in the way future, and even then there is no guarantee. Have there been any hints dropped anywhere of David coming in the next film?

Personally, since Uhura is nearly always tied with Spock, Chapel was ignored completely (except to be another James T. Kirk conquest) and Gaila was killed off, I’d like to have a strong, independent woman on her own. Not chasing after or worrying about her boyfriend or to look sexy in her underwear, someone who is completely focused on her position on the Enterprise and 100% reliable. Carol could be the amazing female character I’ve been waiting for, if the writers give her the chance.

418. Aly - June 3, 2013

Ps- though as I said I’d rather see her solo, I think the banter Carol and Bones had was very cute. Of course I adore Bones/Karl Urban most of all so I am a little biased :)

419. Karen - June 3, 2013

@415 Trekkiegal

Thank you! Looks fabbo. I’ll browse properly asap. Deadlines at the moment.

Also, in case you’d not come across it:

fozmeadows(dot)wordpress(dot)com

Is a brilliant feminist commentator on all things spec fic and related. You must read her essay on the latest spec fic shitfight.

As for Carol, I absolutely hear what you’re saying and I really do agree. It’s just my pathetic little romantic heart does love a happily ever after. So you could say I’m trying to have my cake and eat it too. Crumbs? What crumbs?

I find it fascinating that all over the place, folks are finally making a lot of noise about the Marcus crap, and its many relatives in all spheres of life. Of course there will be the bitter clinger whiners who like their privilege and want to keep their privilege, the socially unevolved men who really do think women exist in all permutations to service them in any way they want, and who demand they keep their mouths shut otherwise because they simply cannot handle being called on their crap.

So we keep on calling it, and we put up with men emailing us to tell us that what we need is a good raping, that should shut us up.

I’ve slain my share of dragons on this and frankly, my arm is tired. I now prefer to celebrate the guys like Phil, in forums like this, who get where those pesky mouthy spoilsport wimminz are coming from and understand that treating women as people first in no way endangers their masculinity.

And I dream of the day when calling someone a sexist is as shaming and damning as calling someone a racist is today.

420. Karen - June 3, 2013

@416 Aly

Your dreams for Carol are brilliant. I’ll be hoping for that too.

421. Matt Wright - June 3, 2013

And I dream of the day when calling someone a sexist is as shaming and damning as calling someone a racist is today.

Indeed :)

422. Matt Wright - June 3, 2013

@ 416 – Wouldn’t that be great? What’s really a huge bummer is of course that JJ (at least on his own) did some pretty good service to women in his early days on TV. It seems his current cohort missed that part of his career?

423. Matt Wright - June 3, 2013

As an aside have you all seen Looper? I highly recommend it. It’s not quite what you think it is from initial appearances and has a fantastic performance by Emily Blunt that basically changes the entire tone and course of the movie for the last third. I don’t want to say more in case people reading these comments haven’t seen it. But while it’s hardly perfect and certainly fails the Bechdel test since the first two-thirds is about Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s rather corrupt character only, and there are certainly clichés in it about a good women saving a man, etc. but it’s actually turned on it’s head a bit by the end.

424. Phil - June 3, 2013

@418.

….And I dream of the day when calling someone a sexist is as shaming and damning as calling someone a racist is today.

Don’t think you could have put a nicer point on it…..it’s not that hard to figure out, treat others the way you want to be treated. It’s not a separate set of instructions for men and women.

425. pauln6 - June 4, 2013

Trekkiegal63 “As for Chapel… doesn’t matter why she was placed on the Original Series. The point was she was there as one of the very few recurring female roles. And since Star Trek has always espoused the values of equality, tolerance and social progression, now would be the perfect time to update her as more than a woman with a crush or a woman chasing her man across space. In ST:TMP Chapel had gone on to become a doctor and was actually running the Enterprise sickbay prior to Kirk ‘drafting’ Bones out of retirement. So there you go. If Chapel could have an updated role in 1979, and with just one or two lines of dialogue between Kirk and McCoy at that – took a matter of seconds to establish this, I see no reason why they couldn’t give her more than ‘someone Kirk doesn’t even remember’ in 2013.”

Absolutely 100% agree. It’s not rocket science. Basically the fanboys writing the new franchise have ZERO respect for their female characters. They think that giving more lines and some action to Uhura is all they need to do for the women. Losing Number One, T’Pau, Chapel AND Rand spells that out conclusively in my view.

Chapel should really be a scientist on her way to become head of life sciences. Making her an MD in TMP was a mistake too since it limited her potential contribution for the future. But as an exobiologist with a medical and paleobiology background it opens up a huge tranche of options. Her scenes in TMP would be exactly the same but with dozens of possible ways to contribute to other stories.

Similarly, Rand can be Kirk’s Yeoman – fine. But make her be an expert martial artist who doubles as the Captain’s bodyguard on away missions and you suddenly have a VERY interesting character who can contribute in all sorts of ways while keeping the essence of the characters.. It’s not that hard to update these women – they just have no interest in doing so.

426. K - June 4, 2013

@426 pauln6

Yes, but this is all coming from the guy who said they had to have the childbirth scene in the first film or why would women want to see the film?

The stupid, it buuuuurns …

And how much do I love your Rand suggestion? That is gold!

427. Momo - June 4, 2013

Men in general seem to have problems with logic based thinking: putting a scene in a film without a point should be criticized. Period. That’s logic.

Pointless scene = diminishing or destroying the fourth wall, creating confusion and question, wasting money and effort filming it and more.

Also adding gratuitous sexuality (another phrase men seem to have a lot of trouble comprehending) is not okay for any gender. This is not a competition to see who can be objectified or dehumanized more, this is supposed to be a future wherein all genders are given parity on all levels.

428. Jovius the Romulan - June 4, 2013

pauln6:

“Similarly, Rand can be Kirk’s Yeoman – fine. But make her be an expert martial artist who doubles as the Captain’s bodyguard on away missions and you suddenly have a VERY interesting character who can contribute in all sorts of ways while keeping the essence of the characters.. It’s not that hard to update these women – they just have no interest in doing so.”

Can I just say how much I love this idea? There will be those who point out Rand only barely got out of that encounter with Kirk’s evil double, but given the new timeline where Carol is a weapons expert as well as a scientist? Totally plausible to give her that additional role. There will also be those who claim it’s actually favouring women over men now, but let’s not forget that Spock is both first officer AND head science officer of the Enterprise. There’s precedent for dual roles on starships.

It still troubles me somewhat that not a SINGLE security guard was female in the last two movies. Let us recall that even the hit-or-miss Enterprise series had female members on NX-01 security and its MACO team. The Phase II fan series similarly did, even if the skant uniforms aren’t well suited for the role. In the day and age where women are already proving they can serve in combat in a few countries, and now can in the good ol’ USA, why the hell not?

For the people who will tell me this: Yes, for crying out loud, I understand that men naturally gravitate more towards the combat role, but they could have at least dropped in one or two women in that EIGHT PERSON TEAM that was escorting Khan. Or make Hendorff’s assistant on the mission to Kronos a woman. Aisha Hinds (Darwin, Chekov’s relief) would have looked the part. She looks built, a tough cookie.

429. Jovius the Romulan - June 4, 2013

Forgot to say this before, but since some people want to interpret the underwear shot as anything besides fanservice (I’m still trying to rationalize that one but it’s difficult), I choose to interpret Rand as not having slept with Kirk. Sorry, I just don’t see it coming from the woman who joined Starfleet with the slim hope that she may find her fiancé someday.

The issues in the movie with women are not quite as bad as I remembered on a second viewing, but all the little things add up, ya know?

430. pauln6 - June 4, 2013

Jovius – You mean Chapel but I tend to agree. Similarly, I don’t think I’d want to see them labour on TOS Rand’s unrequited love for Kirk but it would be amusing if one of the foxy caitian woman came up to Kirk in the street and Rand slammed her into the ground with an insincere, “Sorry Sir, I thought I saw a knife.”

The security team to Qo’nos was a missed opportunity. It looked like it was meant to be Hendorff & Boma who have teamed up together in the comics but Zahra and Rand have also provided back up (in fact Zahra is a security lieutenant rather than a crewman or petty officer this time round). It would have been nice to see Zahra played by a south asian actress even if they didn’t want to use Rand.

431. Jovius the Romulan - June 4, 2013

… I really need to pick up one of the Ongoing trade paperbacks now. That sounds pretty cool. Is Boma in security now? I thought he was a science officer.

432. Karen - June 4, 2013

@426 Momo

Yes, it really is that simple. But there’s a big difference between being able to understand a point, and wilfully refusing to.

433. pauln6 - June 4, 2013

The ongoing comic is good fun. My main criticism is that they are still quite sexist, particularly in the early issues – generally featuring most of the male characters from the re-tellings but not all the women but they are gradually improving on that score. Janice debuted in Galileo Seven in place of Yeoman Mears, which was quite cool since Grace would have played that role if she hadn’t been fired. I don’t know why they flipped Boma to security unless it was to make way for Carol but they have been recycling Hendorf, Zahra, Rand, and Boma in the security role, although only Hendorf has had a story where he was the main focus – and it was one of the best to date. It’s cool since at any moment they could steal a recurring character – a bit like the third tier pilot characters in NuBSG. I hope they do it with more semi-regular characters too.

I suspect that Carol is going to steal Janice’s potential thunder. I think they may have postponed a re-write of the Enemy Within to feature Carol in Rand’s role. I don’t mind that so much but I hope they do spend a bit of time to give Janice some of her old personality back and don’t just bump her off before they develop her.

434. Trekkiegal63 - June 4, 2013

#418. Karen:

Thanks so much for the link! I love what I’ve read so far. I was up late last night reading the X-File commentary (was a fan of that show in its hayday) and can’t wait to read more. You’re right, she’s wonderful! :)

And this…

And I dream of the day when calling someone a sexist is as shaming and damning as calling someone a racist is today.

…was a stroke of brilliance. You gave me chills! Bravo!

#416. Aly:

What a wonderful post! I second that!

#424. pauln6:

Hmmm, you make a good point about Chapel’s TOS MD limiting her plot involvement, afterall, we already have McCoy for medical advice and wizardry. Good point! Seeing her as head of life sciences would be wonderful and create more dialogue for her.

And your Rand idea? Glorious!

#427. Jovius the Romulan:

For the people who will tell me this: Yes, for crying out loud, I understand that men naturally gravitate more towards the combat role, but they could have at least dropped in one or two women in that EIGHT PERSON TEAM that was escorting Khan.

I know, right? Excellent point and astute observation, as always.

#426. Momo:

Very well said! Straight to the point, but oh-so eloquent.

435. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 4, 2013

Basement Blogger –

Thank you for your support. I feel like the odd one out here who does not see things the way most people want to.

It is *funny* that some people would call me sexist etc, when it has been me who has pointed out discrimination perpetrated against females in blatant and not so obvious forms in various parts of the world. Some people probably just brushed off my posts as mere rants/ramblings…This was long before trekkiegal, Karen and others came on the scene.

Reality – neither men NOR women can do anything, everything. It is about trying the make a more level playing field so that both men and women can be the best that they can be at whatever they choose to be and do.

One of the worst forms of SEXIST discrimination against woman is the hassling, even sometimes the criminalization of women who nurse their own infants with their own milk specifically, magically designed by nature, coming from their own bodies in order that the baby receive essential nourishment in the first year of its life! No woman should have to hide away, find a room in order to breastfeed her baby for fear of being ogled or moved on security or whatever, yet this is what keeps happening over and over. Every other human being is able to eat in public without scrutiny or censure. If she were bottle-feeding, she would be left alone.

It is blatant discrimination against what is uniquely WOMAN.

The reason why she may be ogled is because it is a rare sight for most people and they cannot help but be curious and keep looking. The fact that such a sight of a mother doing what mothers have had to do for thousands of years is so rare is the real SEXIST OBSCENITY.

People are so out of touch with their psycho-sexual physicality that they end up getting wound out over the sight of a female in her underwear and other such crap. Lactation is the final phase of the full female sexual cycle, ie life creating, life affirming cycle, but would any of you know that?

Zoe Saldana and others can warble on about women getting to kick ass just like a man etc. Whoopdee-doo. What about standing up and affirming the right of women to be uniquely Woman as well? Socio-economic set up makes it very hard for women to fulfill their psycho-physical destinies, because, well, there is always the bottle…oh and bills to be paid…oh and keeping up with a career…oh and false modesty…oh and what’s the big deal anyway… so little respect and so much ignorance and stupidity…

436. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 4, 2013

#425 – “Yes, but this is all coming from the guy who said they had to have the childbirth scene in the first film or why would women want to see the film?”

I assume “the guy” you are referring to is JJ Abrams. Why should the notion of a child birth scene buuuuurn you? Is it because it is a uniquely female activity? Do you feel threatened by the “feminine”?

This is what I don’t get about the women commenting here. They are criticizing film makers for showing women as they are – Carol Marcus, briefly, as she is without clothes or Winona giving birth to James Kirk. Obviously, women can and do more than just be in their underwear or give birth (is there anything the writers/director have said to the contrary?), but why such anger if women are shown doing what they are physically and specifically capable of doing and being as opposed to what we see and know of men?

It is this sexist misogyny, as in what seems to be a fundamental fear and loathing of that which is uniquely woman/feminine, that I can’t abide or understand. How can we get men to affirm our needs, our rights, our femininity, if most women cannot affirm themselves or can cope with seeing their fundamental biological natures shown in a positive way?

437. pauln6 - June 5, 2013

I agree but I think it is just that the women were shoe-horned into these exclusively female activities e.g. Ok so we need a birth scene – we’ll need a woman, Kirk’s engaging in sexy-time – we’ll need a woman, we have parents – one of them will need to be a woman etc.

What this does is underscore the fact that women are doing ‘women’s things’. Similarly, we see plenty of women sick bay but exclusively male security. It’s nothing new sadly.

Look at Fifth Element – great fun and they could have gone anywhere with it but the police and army were pretty much male-dominated – the one female soldier – who would have have been great to see – was labelled a freak show and got no lines, so we got stewardesses and a feisty female heroine who despite her vast abilities is so vulnerable that she needs a middle-aged man to protect her and she wears – well, pretty much nothing. The opera singer and her entourage were really cool but the way the movie was presented had polarised male and female roles. Very irritating and definitely not appropriate to Trek.

All NuTrek needs to do is determine the gender of its new characters randomly. Problem solved. Nothing would please me more than seeing an 8-woman security team because that’s what the coin toss produced.

438. Jovius the Romulan - June 5, 2013

^ Right on point.

Of course we’re going to see women giving birth, breastfeeding, etc. With the exception of a ridiculous movie like “Junior” (if people think the science in Trek is bad, they should see the medical aberrations in this doozy!), men are not able to do either of these uniquely female things.

The problem lies not in depicting things only women are physically capable of, but putting them into those roles exclusively. Does it make much sense for the comms officer to be beamed down and keep Khan distracted? Of course not. But /dramatically/ it works and gives capable actress Zoe Saldana more to do than sit around the bridge and say, “Hailing frequences open.” But as has been pointed out, we also need to reinvent certain characters to not only be more in line with the 21st century but push the boundaries of our time and make people rethink their perceptions. That’s what some of the best Star Trek episodes have done and what I’m disappointed these two movies are doing. Rather than trying to change the status quo, they are simply content to reinforce it. (“Reassociation” showed a beautiful relationship between two people without once commenting that they were both physically female. In 1995. Beautiful episode and a shame we did not get more like it in the TNG era.) Again, “Enterprise” got it right in showing a some security officers and MACO personnel as well as having a recurring role of a female captain — something J.J. and company obviously missed the memo on since their universe has the events of this series preceding it!

But hey, I’m just a straight white male, what do I know? ;)

439. Jovius the Romulan - June 5, 2013

That should read “two movies aren’t doing”.

440. Karen - June 5, 2013

Trekkiegal, so glad you liked FM’s site. Very thoughtful and thought provoking stuff, she writes. And yes, X Files! Even thought I thought it disappeared up its own bottom in the end, when it was good it was utterly brilliant. The Unnatural has to be one of my favourite eps of anything ever.

441. The A-Man - June 5, 2013

“What’s wrong with being sexy?”

“Sex-IST man”

“Isn’t it the same thing?”

442. msn1701 - June 5, 2013

I’m a chick and I am a feminist but this just didn’t bother me. As long as they had a shirtless Kirk to balance it out. If it had been JUST her, I would’ve been a little pissed. But come on, there are many other things in life that are way more sexist than Carol Marcus in an outfit that she basically could’ve worn to the pool.

What is WRONG with these chicks? Times like this I feel annoyed at my sex. We’re not all like this, guys!

443. Trekkiegal63 - June 5, 2013

#437. Jovius the Romulan:

Was all set to reply to post #434 but then read your post…

The problem lies not in depicting things only women are physically capable of, but putting them into those roles exclusively.

Bravo! You said it all with this one sentence. In fact, that sentence needs to be bolded because it is the gist of the problem and what so few people are getting…

The problem lies not in depicting things only women are physically capable of, but putting them into those roles exclusively.

The bulk of the debates I’ve had on this site regarding feminism and sexism center around this concept, be it the over use of the romantic trope, gratuitous sexual objectification, or the overuse of gender-related stereotypes.

The fact of the matter is that women are almost always defined by these ‘feminine’ attributes as if that is all we are, as if these things that are strictly feminine define us. Well, they don’t. Yes, women give birth, and yes, its a beautiful thing to bring life into the world (have done it myself and would go through the fourteen hours of labor for my daughter again and again and again, to the nth degree, because she’s wonderful and I love her) but these things do not a woman make.

And before anyone says, again, that this is not the case, that women aren’t being stereotyped, generalized, and relegated to certain roles within film, here is a dose of reality…

Another fan yesterday posted a link in the sticky thread to gender related media presence being conducted by SDSU. SDSU findings actually support the findings of Geena Davis’ non-profit organization of the same purpose, seejane.org. These statistics are as disturbing as they are eye-opening (http://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/research.html). A few examples:

Male characters are more likely than female characters to be identified by their occupational status. 33% of female characters have unknown occupational status versus 19% of male characters.

When occupational status is known, female characters are most likely to be in out-of-workforce positions such as homemaker or student (22%), followed by white collar positions (15%), and blue collar positions (13%). Male characters are most likely to hold white collar positions (22%) and blue collar positions (22%).

Female characters are more likely than male characters to be identified by their marital status. 60% of male characters have unknown marital status versus 41% of female characters.

Female characters are younger than their male counterparts. The majority of female characters are in their 20s (27%) and 30s (28%). The majority of male characters are in their 30s (29%) and 40s (25%). These percentages are similar to those collected in 2002.

Male characters are much more likely than females to be portrayed as leaders. Overall, male characters account for 86% and females 14% of leaders. Broken down by type of leader, males comprise 93% of political and government leaders, 92% of religious leaders, 83% of business leaders , 73% of social leaders, and 70% of scientific and intellectual leaders.

… for those of us who are not only women, some of us within the workforce (not only within the workforce, but working within the industries indicated above) but also mothers of young women on the brink of journeying out into the world themselves, these statistics are upsetting and something needs to be done.

So anyway, Jovius, thank you, so much, once again, for not only getting it, but summing up the issue so beautifully in your post. For a ‘straight white male’ you’re far more enlightened than most. You, too, Pauln6! You’re both good guys.

444. pauln6 - June 5, 2013

I tried my hand at writing a motion comic on Youtube. It was just for a laugh but I’ve enjoyed doing it. I set it post TMP largely because there were loads of screenshots on Trekcore including all the extra crew on the Rec Deck and it was the only time that all the regular cast appeared together on the ship.

I’ve tried to use the characters in ways that made sense but it is a challenge. If you give time to Chapel, it eats into McCoy’s airtime, although I found that using her more as a life scientist is definitely the way to go. I also made up an Andorian security chief using Suzie Plakson’s head to try and even up the sexes a bit amnd because I just could not get on board with Chekov as security chief.

After this thread I went back and reconsidered how I used the women and even I have introduced a ‘romance’ element on multiple occasions, albeit that they all have some significance to the wider plot. No giving birth yet… well unless you include alien parasites. Still, I hope my percentages are better than nuTrek!

445. pauln6 - June 5, 2013

Ooh – I’ve thought of another classic example of traditional sexism! Jack the Giant Killer. Now it didn’t do too badly, the Princess was feisty but still largely a relatively traditional fairy-tale heroine in need of rescue.

SPOILERS

At the end, who gets the crown? Is it the heir to the throne to whom the crown belongs by right? Nope. It’s the man. They had a golden opportunity to do the right thing, the surprising thing, but the right thing, and then ran screaming back to first caveman principles – lol.

446. Jovius the Romulan - June 5, 2013

Trekkiegal63: You’re very welcome. I’m the first to admit when someone made me open my mind a little more and exposed my unconscious preconceptions of certain things. I try to have an open mind. I actually used to think of all teen mothers as “loose” or something, even if I didn’t explicitly say it. But the movie “Juno”? Wow. What a great movie, even if some of the faux-hip dialogue could be a tad grating. It changed my perceptions on teen mothers completely. I totally respected the choice of her to not only carry the child to term, but give it to someone who was in a better position to raise them.

pauln6: Yeah, God help me… I actually mostly liked the movie. But that ending bothered me like hell.

447. Trekkiegal63 - June 5, 2013

When following links from the SDSU gender studies site, I found out that UC Santa Barbara has also been conducting a ‘gender presence in the media’ study (http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Communication%20and%20Journalism/SmithS.aspx) and read this:

Examining 5,839 characters, a recent study of 129 top grossing G, PG, and PG-13 films theatrically released between 2006 and 2011 showed that less than 30% of all on screen speaking characters are girls or women. The ratio of males to females on the silver screen is 2.53 to 1. Other findings revealed that females are still more likely than males to be depicted in a stereotypical (i.e., caregivers, romantically involved, lacking employment) and hypersexualized (i.e., sexy attire, nudity, thinness) light. Further, females are far less likely to be shown in films as holding clout and powerful positions in political (e.g., Senators, Representatives), financial (e.g., CEO, CFO, COO, GM), or legal (Supreme Count Justices) arenas.

While on screen portrayals are skewed, the percentage of females working behind-the-scenes is even more abysmal. Across 1,100 top-grossing films between 2002 and 2012, only 4.4% of directors are female. This investigation also examined the total number of unique directors after removing individuals that helmed more than one film. In comparison to the 625 unique male directors, only 41 unique females emerged across the 11-year sample. This translates into a gender ratio of 15.24 males to every 1 female director!

…so horribly depressing (though unsurprising as the SDSU study and seejane.org all report similar findings).

448. Karen - June 5, 2013

Ditto ditto ditto to Trekkiegal re: Jovius and paul. Sometimes it feels like I’m drowning in a sea of guys who don’t get it, but then I read what you have to say and I get all cheerful again. Thank you. It takes courage and humility to look past our default settings, and accept that others don’t live in the same world we do.

As for the ending of JTGK, well, it’s Singer. What did you expect? *g*

449. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 5, 2013

Certainly Star Trek (TOS) has been male centered with only one character out the main seven being female. It is a difficulty which the producers/writers have to grapple with. While we might want to see more gender balance, we can’t quite get our heads around the notion of a female Sulu, Chekov, McCoy or Spock etc. We love those original characters just as they are and being male is part of what makes them who they are.

However, in this latest movie, there were quite a lot of females in the Enterprise crew, many of them on the bridge. Unfortunately, none got any real speaking parts or actual identity. That was also the case with the subordinate male crew members as well. Curiously, the most obvious, and bald, female who took over from Chekov after Kirk reassigned him, has received flak from some posters here for being too big, a bit ugly, not sexy enough. Personally, I thought she looked great – a bit different, but so what?

In order to be on board a starship (and have a position on the bridge), it is a given that these people, both males and females, would have done their basic Starfleet Academy training, if not more. In other words, simply being there makes them trained professionals, who, very likely, have specialist training in a particular field(s) as well. Carol Marcus was a scientist. Lt Uhura was a xenolinguist and communications specialist. I don’t believe that either Kirk or Spock underestimated these women’s skills so why should we?

The problem here is that too many people are looking at Star Trek through 20th/21st century eyes and relating what they see and hear going on to what goes on now. What the movie makers are trying to give us is a glimpse of what is happening in this 23rd century Star Trek universe, where there are a lot of similarities, but also some differences.

Try to imagine you are a young Kirk growing up in this earth world seeing a number of different alien species, males and females, being exposed to a great range of customs and practices – some more reserved and others far less so. What we now here, in the western 21st century, consider normal, acceptable, right or otherwise may not necessarily be the case in this 23rd century Star Trek universe. For instance, it may be considered by those female cat-like ladies normal, correct, essential to be a pair, ESPECIALLY when it comes to being sexually active with an alien species, the human male.

The Menosian race (my own creation) have their own needs and quirks as well. That does not necessarily mean that they are anymore aberrant, immoral, wrong, whatever than anybody else. In fact, they are very moral, peace loving people but I doubt that some people here would be able to fathom or comprehend…

You can close yourself off from possibilities and ideas of what might be or you can try to sit outside the box, the circle just for a little while, at least and then take another look…

450. Phil - June 5, 2013

@448. You know, you can put as much lipstick on your pig as you like, it still doesn’t change the fact it’s a pig. I’m not buying that 21st century humanity is getting it’s hands around the idea that harassment and sexism is wrong, just to have it suggested that in the 23rd century it’s suddenly okay. It’s a basic principle of (personal) philosophy that when making a judgment on, or the implications of, an action, that one should do no harm. Subjugating one s*x to another does harm. We can discuss intent and extent all day long – I seriously doubt these guys deliberately set out to make a movie that was as tone deaf to the female audience that it is…and I suspect they learned their lesson. This does not rise to the level of harassment that women and girls have to endure in India, or the flat out virtual enslavement women endure in some Middle Eastern cultures. All the more reason for Trek to get it right, because people in those cultures ARE watching, and hopefully, learning something.

451. Basement Blogger - June 5, 2013

@ 434

Keachick,

You’ve been around this site a lot longer than many of us. And yes, you’ve espoused a feminist viewpoint. I’m sorry to some that it’s not radical enough. I’m sure if you don’t agree with the late Andrea Dworkin, some would say you can’t be part of a feminist movement. Yet, feminist and former ACLU president Nadine Strossen would agree with some of your views.

The problem is that you and I are attacked personally for our views. I say I find the image of Alice Eve appealing. Then I get labeled a sexist. Forget that I support pay equity for women, a woman’s right to choose, was appalled over Virginia’s trans-vaginal ultrasound laws, etc. I have done pro bono civil rights work. One viewpoint not in line with a fundamentalist dogma, means I can be painted with a wide brush. Men might enjoy the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue but does that make them sexist? Every individual man has different feelings on how they view women. Yes, some men are sexist. But not all who admire a beautiful woman are sexist.

One of Star Trek’s themes is the human condition. And sex is part of the human condition. If you watched the new fan film on this site, “Pilgrim of Eternity” hardcore Trek fans recognized this.. At the 27 minute mark, Dr. Elise McKennah gives a shirtless Kirk the once over. Now there’s only one reason for this scene. Show off Kirk’s spectacular body. The same happened many times in the TOS. Hardcore fans know sexuality is part of the human condition and Star Trek. And by the way, the scene did not bother me. I thought it was playful and humorous.

Since I’ve been a regular on this website, I’ve been called an idiot, had my logic and intelligence questioned. By the way, most ofl that name calling was for deducing the characters that Benedict Cumberbatch and Alice Eve were playing which I correctly got. It’s easy for fundamentalists in Internet comments to spew their hatred for people who have different views from the dogma . It’s much harder for a fundamentalist to see that the world can be a shade of gray.

452. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 5, 2013

How many women work in the security services, police force etc now, compared with men and what positions do they hold and why?

Reality – men are generally physically taller, have greater bone mass and greater muscle to fat ratio than women. This makes them naturally stronger and faster. It is the much higher levels of MALE hormone, testosterone, which allows for this. This is also responsible for males to be reproductively capable. Therefore, the men, by virtue of their biological natures, are generally (but not exclusively) more capable of mounting a defence against foe. Work in areas like security, police etc makes a lot of sense when you are a male seeking to protect and defend.

Women are not so tall, have less bone mass (which makes them more prone to osteoporosis later in life, unfortunately) and have a smaller muscle to fat ratio. This makes them generally physically weaker and not quite as fast, less able to cover great distances in a short space of time. This is mostly because women have much higher levels of the FEMALE hormone, oestrogen, which also gives them softer skin and better (more) hair on the head and makes them reproductively capable. Her strength is of a different kind and is less obvious.

People tend to work to their natural inborn strengths and of course, many do choose and can extend themselves beyond what they can naturally do. “Natural” in this sense, does not necessarily mean that they don’t have to make a lot of effort to achieve their goals.

Given that I doubt, indeed hope, that men and women have not changed fundamentally in their biological natures, along with inherent “strengths” and “weaknesses” by the time of Star Trek (alt. universe), then I do think that there will be a “disparity” in what males and females tend to choose as their specialty. That is – there will still be a few more women doing nursing type work (an honorable profession if there was ever one, btw) than men and more men doing work in more physically demanding areas like security than women (also an honorable profession). That does not mean, though, that we won’t see some male nurses and some female security officers.

453. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 5, 2013

Phil – whatever pig you referring to is all yours, not mine, nor necessarily the writers.

Wow – you just can’t help yourself, can you?…:((

454. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 5, 2013

“Subjugating one s*x to another does harm.”

BTW, I think the word you mean to write is SEX, yes SEX, SEX, SEX. Shocking, I know…

NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE was subjugating one sex to another in this movie. Kirk did not harrass Carol Marcus. If you are going to take that stand, one could also say that Carol Marcus sexually harrassed Kirk by getting undressed while allowing him to still be in the same room where there was a good chance, accidentally or otherwise, that he might glimpse her in an undressed state.

Actually, when I think about that scene, especially in light of this movie being seen in much more sexually repressive countries, I deem it a good lesson to men and women in those places.

a) that it is alright for a female to undress in company and expect a male, any male, not to take advantage of her undressed state for non-consensual sex
b) that the male, in this case and perhaps especially because he is known for his sexual promiscuity, does NOT make any move toward her and, once he understands why she requested that he turn around, HE DID SO without further ado.
c) afterward, they both carry on performing their duties unhindered by his brief visual encounter.

Sadly, I doubt anyone will get it…oh dear.

455. Trekkiegal63 - June 5, 2013

Keachick and Basement Blogger:

The cost of that body one of you so admires because he’s never been “cured of his maleness” to quote the man directly, and the other turns a blind-eye to the fact that women are:

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.

…(seejane.org), in order to push a ‘naturalist’ agenda, or a Trek-can-do-no-wrong agenda, or an I-love-romance-thus-don’t-care-what-stats-say agenda, or whatever other motivation, was five months of an exceedingly unhealthy diet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2319856/Star-Trek-actress-Alice-Eve-admits-eating-SPINACH-weeks.html

I have a degree molecular biology and I work in the biotech industry (you know, one of those industries Hollywood feels is a males only club? *gasp* You mean female scientists exist?!) thus I am qualified to say that a diet of only spinach? NOT HEALTHY!

And while we’re at it, here is a link to an organization that studies the effect this oversexualization of women in the media has on young girls and tries to educate folks on the matter:

http://www.about-face.org/

So here’s the thing, I am not going to change your beliefs, you are not going to change mine. We ALL know this by now as we’ve gone round and round on this topic a dozen different ways, always to no consensus and a whole truck load of animosity. But I am going to tell you simply, and for the last time: research and stats (from accredited universities), critics, and a good handful of the blogging community who has reviewed STID disagree with you. Maybe its time to start wondering why.

456. Karen - June 5, 2013

Phil, can I say I love you? In a totally non-sexual, non-objectifying and non-harassing kind of way? *g*

If one of Trek’s stated purposes was/is to show us the best of humanity, to give us something to aspire to, then surely the last thing we need is it showing us that what people really, really want to aspire to is seeing a woman strip down to her underwear for no good reason at all and be photographed in a blatantly objectifying way that highlights her barely contained breasts?

I mean, is that what Trek is? Soft-porn for emotionally immature male audience members?

Let’ s hope you’re right. Let’s hope the Trek team got the message and that the 3rd film, if there’s a 3rd film, shows that their tone-deafness has received the whack with the tuning fork it so richly deserved, and that they lift their game.

What pisses me off is that there is so, so much to love in STID. And I do love those parts, with unreserved abandon. I love the Spock Uhura stuff, even though I totally see where some critics are coming from re: the restriction of Uhura to a girlfriend role. I don’t quite see it’s like that, but I see their point and in part do agree.

Initially I was dismayed that Abrams would be moving on to do SW. Now I’m kind of hoping he does, and that they find a director with less ridiculous macho, sexist baggage dragging him down. Because clearly he is clueless. I don’t understand how the guy who gave us Sydney Bristow could serve us this kind of insulting pap, but there you go.

I’ll just hope for the best, going forward. And trust that there are many many many more Phils out there, who do get it, in all the ways that really count.

457. Karen - June 5, 2013

Trekkiegal, you are da bomb. Right now I am cheering.

Phil, I just tried to post something and it got swallowed. I don’t have time to repeat the whole thing, maybe it’ll magically appear, but I will repeat this. I love you, in a totally non-objectifying, non-sexy, non-harrassing way. Okay? *g*

458. Phil - June 5, 2013

@455. My wife appreciates that. Thanks… :-)

459. Matt Wright - June 5, 2013

@ Karen – found your lost comments, not sure why but it was flagged as spam and put directly in the comment spam category, instead of being flagged for moderation, which I would have seen and approved.

460. Basement Blogger - June 5, 2013

@ 454

Trekkiegal63

It’s not my intent to change your mind. While we disagree, it’s not my intent to go round and round with you. So I’m not going to talk about the ideas in your post directly. My post (450) for Keachick was about how she and I have been attacked personally. But feel free to address anything I have to say on this website or anywhere for that matter. Please speak your mind. .

461. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 5, 2013

“But actress Alice Eve appears to have taken Hollywood dieting to the next level, admitting to eating nothing but spinach in a bid to slim down for her role as Dr Carol Marcus in Star Trek: Into Darkness.
Asked how she prepared for the part, the English actress said: ‘The only thing I can reveal is that I haven’t eaten much apart from spinach for weeks.'”

What five months? Has or has she not eaten anything other than spinach? The two paragraphs contradict each other. Frankly, I do not believe her. I think she is exaggerating how little she has eaten. She also says weeks, not months.

“Currently popular is the ‘green cleanse’ championed by Madonna’s former personal trainer, Tracey Anderson, which involves guzzling a ‘power juice’ made from kale, spinach, beetroot and apple puree at breakfast.”

Guess who has just completed the month long ‘green cleanse’ diet and it was NOT a female? Answer: Chris Pine!

“in order to push a ‘naturalist’ agenda, or a Trek-can-do-no-wrong agenda, or an I-love-romance-thus-don’t-care-what-stats-say agenda”

You can cut the bs right now. If that’s just what you believe I am on about, you really have no idea who I am and why I do not heed everything you say. Just because everybody else seems to agree does not necessarily make their perspective the ONLY correct one. By the way, the word “romance” has various meanings, not just having to do with a relationship between two people which may be sexual in nature.

What’s more, it seems that I never learned to play whatever it is that you and others, including poster from another thread, who got snarky with me and wrote “Thanks for playing”. Somehow I do not feel that I missed anything.

This is a site devoted to Star Trek and in particular, right now, to discussion of the latest Star Trek movie, Star Trek Into Darkness. That is what I have been discussing and interpreting, ie the words and actions of the characters who are living in a 23rd century world, where alien beings have been discovered to exist and where humans and others are trying to co-exist on earth and elsewhere.

Kirk is basically a nice person who sometimes gets it wrong, but not often. He has a high sex drive (that energy also allows him to be good at other things) but is still able to show respect, warmth, understanding, friendship. Then again, why shouldn’t he? Sex is a means of not only reproducing but of also a way of expressing and sharing passion, interest, curiosity, tenderness, sympathetic joy and sorrow with one or more. We have only been shown the briefest of scenes where Kirk has been in the company of undressed females and in all cases, he has been considerate, appreciative and non-coercive.

Why are people so negative and why do people only see the negative when it comes to showing any hint of sexuality or (semi) nakedness in these two movies? Why are people so keen to de-sex the characters in Star Trek? I find this attitude so demeaning, dehumanizing and fundamentally WRONG, even a bit immoral, as it seeks to deny the right for characters to express their sexuality which is an integral part of their/our humanity. It goes against fundamental human rights.

Please – do not shove other people’s reviews or stats. Enough already.

462. Basement Blogger - June 5, 2013

@ 457

Karen,

I believe your post reappeared at 456. This site does that sometimes where you post something and it disappears, only to reappear later. Not an expert on the Internet so I can’t tell you why.

What I can tell you is that there are filters on this site that keep one from posting. Words such as p______ography, p-____n Tthough reading your post it seems that the adjective with a hyphen soft- seems to make the word okay. Dmduncan found out that the phrase hea___lth insuranc____e will cause the filter to delete a post. Multiple hyper links will swallow posts. I would not add more than two but don’t quote me on that. Happy posting.

463. Phil - June 5, 2013

That’s funny, I sell he**th insur***e….l**e ins*****e, too…

464. Matt Wright - June 5, 2013

@ 462 — It’s no mystery. I explained it in #459.
Here’s what happens you post your comment, from your POV it appears to be submitted. It is then in a second or two flagged by the comment spam detection system and held for moderation. One of us at the site comes along and okays it and it goes back into the comments where it was before it was held.

The filters employed here are widely used by all kinds of sites and blogs and use both crowd sourced and heuristic rules. Common Internet sense will tell you why those words get it filtered immediately. A ton of spam is about scams for car, health, etc. insurance, black market sales pitches, and of course lots of porn links are attempted to be submitted as comments.

Also since this is a blog comment system and not a proper BBS forum, long posts, posts with lots of URLs, etc. will get flagged. If you’ve successfully posted a few comments before, it usually just gets flagged for approval, not as spam.

You guys have no idea how many legit spam comments this site gets bombarded with. I cleared out the backlog of spam comments earlier this week and within 30 seconds of doing so, there were already 10+ totally bogus comments attempted to be posted.

465. Matt Wright - June 5, 2013

Oh also trying to comment essentially the same wording again and again in an effort to get one of the comments through doesn’t work, it makes it worse, since it looks like you’re a spammer bot trying to post things back-to-back in quick succession, and then I find multiple versions of the same basic comment stacked up in the moderation queue.

466. Karen - June 5, 2013

LOL, Phil.

Tell me, how much if any flack do you encounter in your day to day living with guys at work etc, given your stance on this kind of thing? Or doesn’t it come up?

467. Karen - June 5, 2013

Thanks, Matt! Always helpful to get the whys and wherefores behind the magic. I’ll try not to foul up the works in future.

468. Trekkiegal63 - June 5, 2013

#457. Karen:

Awww, thanks Karen. I think you’re awesome, too! I cheer your posts all the time. :)

And yes, Phil’s one of the good ones.

#461. Keachick:

Frankly, I do not believe her. I think she is exaggerating how little she has eaten.

Of course you don’t. Frankly, I’m not at all surprised.

But you are right, when googling “Alive Eve Spinach Diet” I grabbed the wrong link, this article was more in-depth on what ‘weeks’ actually entailed as far as duration. Which was, as previously stated, five months.

http://www.eonline.com/news/415312/alice-eve-s-star-trek-diet-consisted-mostly-of-spinach-wanted-to-be-in-proper-fighting-shape

But you know, five months or five weeks… still unhealthy. ;)

This is a site devoted to Star Trek and in particular, right now, to discussion of the latest Star Trek movie, Star Trek Into Darkness.

You don’t say. And here, all this time, I thought I was posting to a site centered around the prematurely cancelled “Earth 2″.

,,,Keachick, that sentence of yours was not even remotely necessary. Honestly!

BTW: I have not bad-mouthed Kirk, a character I, too, like, just so you know (though clearly not as much as you) so the whole Kirk cheerleading paragraph was also unnecessary.

Please – do not shove other people’s reviews or stats. Enough already.

Translation: “I don’t like you posting stats because they contradict my opinion and disrupt my worldview and I’d rather have them out of sight and out of mind than confront the fact that they exist and I could be wrong.”

Well, sucks to be you ’cause I will post any stats relevant to the conversation. One of the benefits of living in a society wherein free speech exists, don’t you know.

Have a good evening, Keachick. :)

469. Phil - June 5, 2013

@466. Self employed – generally isn’t an issue with the other agents in the base office. Also, we tend to have a good ratio of male/female agents anyway. The branch manager isn’t shy in pointing out those that when you get to dealing with senior management with the various carriers, it’s still mostly an old white guys club.

Dealing with clients is a different issue. I’m amazed how good I’ve gotten at replying to what is being said without actually agreeing or disagreeing with them. Coming here is a bit therapeutic…

470. Karen - June 5, 2013

@469 Phil

Thanks for the background! It’s always cool to find out how and why people come to the places they’re at.

As for the therapeutic value of shouting at the computer screen while typing one’s fingers bloody … heh. I hear you. *g*

Had an interesting conversation with a guy I know, who just saw ID. I asked him about That Scene and he was – yeah! WTF was that shit? What were they thinking?????

You guys. You make me smile.

471. Karen - June 5, 2013

Trekkiegal, you know I’m cheering again, right? *g*

472. Basement Blogger - June 5, 2013

@ 456

Karen says,

“I don’t understand how the guy who gave us Sydney Bristow could serve us this kind of insulting pap, but there you go.”

Um… you did see the season two episode of Alias, “Phase One?” It played right after the biggest testosterone night of the year. Its debut was right after the Super Bowl. So what was the idea to keep the males glued to their TVs?.

This scene from a script by J.J. Abrams.

http://tvtimewithbob.blogspot.com/2012/08/alias-phase-one.html

You remember this one. It’s Sydney’s multiple bikini lingerie scenes featuring black and red underwear. She later chokes the male target, and asks “What was wrong with the black one?” Sexy and funny. And I would have given the wrong answer to Agent Bristow. I liked the red one. :-)

473. Karen - June 5, 2013

@472 BB

I only ever saw Alias on dvd, since I’m not in the US and anyway came to the party late. So all that live to air contextual stuff skated right on by me.

However I do indeed remember the ep, and the scene. *g* Which is why I can say I have no problem with lingerie or flesh or any of that stuff, when the context is supportive and positive, and it always was with Sydney. Even though, for me, that show eventually disappeared most of the way up its own bottom, Sydney remains one of my favourite characters ever.

The other thing is, it really is possible to have grave misgivings over some elements of a story, or with some of a storyteller’s work, while wholeheartedly celebrating other parts. It’s not a zero sum game. I mean, I think the entire Trek team got the whole Kirk/Spock friendship exactly right in this film. I think their reworking of Scotty is genius. I also really really like Spock and Uhura, I love the maturity of their relationship and the enormous, mutual respect they have for each other. I even get, I think, what they’re trying to do with Kirk and his immaturity. I just think they get a big fat F for its ultimate execution.

None of it’s uncomplicated. But nutting it out with smart fans is the reward.

474. Basement Blogger - June 5, 2013

@ 461

“If that’s just what you believe I am on about, you really have no idea who I am and why I do not heed everything you say. Just because everybody else seems to agree does not necessarily make their perspective the ONLY correct one. ”

Right on, Keachick. Don’t let anyone label you.

And Kirk in TOS was not just a ladies man. He could display compassion and love See The City On the Edge of Forever;

You keep speaking your mind even when we disagree. :-) .

475. Basement Blogger - June 5, 2013

@ 473

I don’t have a problem with Spock and Uhura. It does make me wonder if it was a calculation to appeal to the female demographic. I remember the commentary to the 2009 movie where the writers were hoping their wives would find Star Trek interesting and were pleased when the emotional first ten minutes pleased the spouses.

However, I’m concerned that McCoy might get less time. In the series, he’s part of the troika. And fans believe he’s been replaced by Uhura. I love McCoy because I agree with him many times. He’s a passionate man His heart is in the right place. . And frankly if he were faced with either breaking the Prime Directive or letting Spock die, he would not hesitate to break the Prime Directive. McCoy also gets the funniest lines.

476. Karen - June 6, 2013

@475 BB

Oh, I so hear you about Bones. It’s one of the major drawbacks about film vs tv, as you mentioned on the other thread. And as much as I do enjoy Spock/Uhura, I’m really missing the strong Bones element. And seeing as how something had to give, it’s not an unfair assumption to make that this time around it was Bones. Frankly, I think this latest film could have pushed out to 2.5 hours, with a little more down time/character time. The pace was just that bit too frenetic, which meant some of the plot handwaving didn’t quite pass the smell test, at least for me.

Ah, the balancing act. It’s so tough.

477. pauln6 - June 6, 2013

I thought Bones did fine in the movie. People seem to think he got less because the supporting cast were elevated. He probably got almost as much as all the preceding movies (except maybe STVI) if you go back and look more carefully.

But if you think that the writers have learned their lesson think again. They did exactly the same thing in 2009. I complained. Nothing changed. Women have been producing reports and complaining for decades. The number of women in speaking parts has dropped. Unless they get a woman in a prominent position on their writing team, woman are going to remain objectified women, mothers, and girlfriends.

478. Karen - June 6, 2013

@477 pauln6

I totally hear you on dismantling the all white male echo chamber. To be honest, until somebody like Whedon, who has the track record and the clout, can translate what he did with Buffy onto the big screen (and he’s talking about that at the moment) then the rest of Hollywood, which is a mob of sheep desperately looking for a shepherd, will not change a thing. The entire industry has become extremely risk averse, which is why we’re being inundated with almost nothing but remakes and reboots. When you consider that Hollywood’s entire power structure is weighted to the while male POV, it sometimes seems like an insurmountable obstacle.

But I still have hope. I think once there’s a crack in the wall things will shift, but first we need that crack. I resent having to rely on a man for it, but that’s just the way the power paradigm operates.

As for Bones, I really loved what we got of him, in last film and this. But given how important he is to Kirk in the classic series I don’t want to see him reduced to funny one-liners, a furrowed brow and a hypospray. He was often the only one who’d tell Kirk what he needed to hear, when he really didn’t want to hear it. He occupied a unique place in the power structure, a unique place in Kirk’s heart, if you will, and I don’t want to see that diminished.

479. Silliness - June 6, 2013

“Unless they get a woman in a prominent position on their writing team, woman are going to remain objectified women, mothers, and girlfriends”

Er … I’m not seeing a problem there.

480. Jemini - June 6, 2013

474. Basement Blogger – June 5, 2013
“However, I’m concerned that McCoy might get less time. In the series, he’s part of the troika. And fans believe he’s been replaced by Uhura.”

Uhura and McCoy have equal screen time in these movies. If someone is replacing McCoy it’s SCOTTY. Just compare his scenes in this movie and how he’s much more an active and prominent character than McCoy.
But I never see people complaining about it.

Also I don’t see people complaining about the cover of the after darkness comics as well: http://25.media.tumblr.com/0a15e1305b6848f79dd6df3f9592670e/tumblr_mnkgu8DDvz1qjedbqo1_500.jpg

481. Trekkiegal63 - June 6, 2013

#471 Karen:

Awww, love you, too, my dear… in the non-objectifying, non-sexy, non-harrassing way. :)

#477. pauln6:

What he said! *points to Pauln6’s brilliantly worded post*

482. pauln6 - June 6, 2013

479 Silliness “Er … I’m not seeing a problem there.”

That’s because you ARE the problem ;P

483. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 6, 2013

“Please – do not shove other people’s reviews or stats. Enough already.

Translation: “I don’t like you posting stats because they contradict my opinion and disrupt my worldview and I’d rather have them out of sight and out of mind than confront the fact that they exist and I could be wrong.”

Touche, Trekkiegal. You seem to be coming from the point of view that might or many must be right, because they also support my worldview.

You seem to keep posting the same links over and over and over. Of course, you have your theories on the whys and wherefore’s of many people who ‘ship’ favourite fictional characters. Well, so have I, but I doubt you would actually agree with me nor would many others, because they may need to confront their own attitudes and values about so many things.

I shall not bother as I do not necessarily have any evidence to back me up, only my own intuition, intelligence and experiences. Nevertheless, I have seen little reason to review my basic outlook – anything but.

Once again, I’m the misfit – not that I really ever intend to be, not at all. Just my reality…for better and/or worse.

484. pauln6 - June 6, 2013

Keachick – Star Trek is set in an idealised fantasy world of racial and sexual equality. In the sixties it was controversial to have female officers at all, so the ratio of 1/3 female crew was reasonably progressive and it was just the way they were portrayed that was problematic, probably right up until Ro Laren and Nechayev started to shift the dynamic in conjunction with Deep Space Nine. This was taken a step further in Voyager by moving women into the traditionally male roles of captain and engineer.

NuTrek is re-writing the sixties version and it should do so by making it more progressive than the 21st century not as progressive as the sixties. That includes adopting the 50/50 ratio they decided to bring about in 1979, and it includes building on the progress made in more recent Trek.

However, for me it’s a numbers game. I’m not saying I want to see 50% of security guards as women, although I would be very happy if they did that. I just want to see 50% women overall, represented at all ranks and in all positions to one degree or another. Most importantly, I want to see 50% of speaking roles given over actresses.

I’m happy with sexist Klingons as long as that sexism is reflected by diversity in other races. I’m not happy with sexist Klingons, sexist Romulans, sexist Vulcans, and sexist humans, all with male biased sexism. They aren’t deliberately denying women but ‘tone deaf’ was a good way to describe them. And it would be so simple to put it right.

485. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 6, 2013

Look – I have ALWAYS said that Star Trek needed to have more women as Enterprise crew – on the bridge, in med bay, in astrophysics, in hydroponics, in geology, in xenobiology/botany, in engineering, in administration… I never had a problem with TNG combining communications with security and having a woman be in charge (*Lt Tasha Yar). I have no idea why they did not make No. 1 Commander Wilhemina Riker, instead Cdr Will Riker, on TNG, but they didn’t.

Actually, I think that in this universe, the communications/security sections should be combined and the duties shared jointly between Lt Uhura and Lt Hendorff (if he is still alive). I think that she may be his senior (not sure), so let him be her subordinate…
I have written as much pretty soon after I came to this site.

The issue here is about how people come to regard any picture or scene showing an attractive female who may be wearing little more than underwear as automatically being sexual objectification of women and therefore sexist which is bad and should not be tolerated. It has gotten out of hand. It is paranoid and ultimately unhealthy. It dishonours the right of a woman to allow herself to be photographed or filmed looking in whatever manner she herself wishes to be seen.

Today, women’s breasts are covered up, even in scenes where obvious and overt sexual intimacy/intercourse is taking place. For example, in Kirk’s scene with the two women, the woman we see is still in her bra, even though it seems fairly obvious from where Kirk was – under the sheets and busy – when his phone rang, that things had progressed well past the undressing stage –
Or
A scene from TV’s “Saving Grace” – just happened to catch last night
Here the female protagonist, Grace, was in throes of passionate sexual activity. Her male partner was naked (or as near, as the censors would allow) and yet she was in her sexually alluring underwear and it showed him apparently “finishing” (entering and f*cking her) while she was still in her underwear…WTF

This kind of take on how male/female sexual activity insults my intelligence, my humanity, my womanhood. A naked woman’s body is not lewd, bad, evil, obscene and her breasts should not have to be always covered, irrespective of what she may be doing, especially if she is in the throes of love making or is nourishing her infant. Treating women like this is indicative of fear, intolerance and disrespect.

I also seek that human beings learn to tolerate and respect ourselves and others as we really are, without the need to always to clothe ourselves in, what are more often than not, products of conceit and deception.

486. Basement Blogger - June 6, 2013

@ 461

Keachick,

I’m strong to the finish cause I eats me spinach….

We need to look at exactly what Alice Eve said when she said she ate spinach to prepare for the role and question is a vegetarian diet harmful?

Here’s the quote from the Daily Mail.

“The only thing I can reveal is that I haven’t eaten much apart from spinach for weeks.'”

The term the Telegraph uses is that she ate a diet of “almost entirely of spinach.” So yes, we don’t know her exact diet. Was there occasional fish? Was there tomatoes in her spinach salad…. etc. etc.

I think we can all agree that spinach is good for humans. It’s high in vitamins and contains antioxidants. And I LOVE SPINACH. Come to a choice of lettuce versus spinach, I choose spinach.

Let’s assume Ms. Eve ate a vegetarian diet. Is there any problems to one’s health by that diet? . No. According to a recent JAMA study of 70k people. In fact, you might live longer if you were more of a vegetarian.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57587449/vegetarian-diet-may-reduce-risk-of-early-death/

THE WRATH OF EVE

So we don’t know her exact diet except that it was mostly spinach. And I don’t want to incur the wrath of Alice Eve but she has been known to “exaggerate” as Spock would sayh. Case in point. She denied that Benedict Cumberbatch was K…….(Can I say this here?) Anyway that story was posted here on February 10. (Sorry, too many links causes the filter to delete posts.) So she could have been exaggerating the amount of spinach. Regardless, there’s nothing wrong with a vegetarian diet.

Okay, were there any body changes to Alice Eve for eating spinach? I’ll admit I did not get a chance to weigh her before and after. Or take readings regarding body fat of Ms. Eve.

The best I can do is go by what I’ve seen of Ms. Eve. I;ve seen her in three previous films before STID. Crossing Over. (2009); She’s Out of My League (2010); Men in Black 3 (2012) I’ve just studied her prior Maxim photos. ;-) Oh come on, have a sense of humor people.

She looks the same. Not fatter or that much slimmer than her previous work. And not being her doctor, I can’t give a diagnosis of whether she’s at her ideal weight and body fat.

This is what I do know. Alice Eve is an Oxford educated actress. She’s a talented, and intelligent. From the interviews I’ve seen, she’s very witty. And she’s also beautiful.

487. Curious Cadet - June 6, 2013

@456 Karen,
“then surely the last thing we need is it showing us that what people really, really want to aspire to is seeing a woman strip down to her underwear for no good reason at all and be photographed in a blatantly objectifying way”

Just found this brilliant quote from the NYT that really sums up how detrimental to the character stripping down is, beyond the social implications.

“These days, as likely as not, when an actor strips down, he’s also shedding much of the individual character he has otherwise worked so painstakingly to create. He becomes (gasp!) an object” — BEN BRANTLEY

488. Karen - June 6, 2013

@487 CC

Except, yanno … ‘he becomes’.

Sigh.

But yes, the point is well made.

489. CaptainKirok - June 6, 2013

#483 Keachick
You wrote: “Once again, I’m the misfit – not that I really ever intend to be, not at all. Just my reality…for better and/or worse.”

I want to tell you that I do not think you are a misfit, and I don’t even think you are in a minority. You might be in a minority here… in this specific discussion, but I think that’s because most people who don’t really object to the scene wouldn’t be bothered to engage in this discussion. You have made it very clear that you care about women and about equality. And despite the harsh criticism you have received, you have hung in there and nicely made the case that a person can care about women and gender equality AND still not be offended by the Alice Eve underwear scene. Most people who agree with you, and believe me when I say there are multitudes out there (who are still good people with a strong sense of social justice), just don’t have the patience to hang in there like you have. This is especially true when those you are disagreeing with begin making personal attacks.

And as I have said before, even if you were in the minority, that wouldn’t make you wrong. Having a bigger team doesn’t make the members of that team more correct.

490. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 6, 2013

You mean a (near) naked person is not an individual with a personality? Bullshit!!!

Think about the ongoing detrimental implications of that statement. Clothes are not who we are. They may actually cover up who we really are. Shirtless Kirk is still Kirk. Carol in bra and panties is still Carol Marcus. This is what I mean by being disgustingly disrespectful towards the character and the actor who plays that character.

People have (or should have) every right to be seen wearing as little or as much as they like, without someone define them as having little or no individuality, character or personality. Rude S.O.D.!

491. Phil - June 6, 2013

@490. Go back and read the article again Rose, that’s not what is being said at all. As a matter of fact, your near constant cherry picking of specific words and sentences to support your incorrect view that what is being objected to was the simple display of skin, when just about what everyone objected was the context it was done in is getting really grating. …you are free to hold that opinion, but that you are now just harping on the clothing optional world you would like to see, and insulting everyone who doesn’t buy off on your soft core p**n version of Trek is really getting old. At least try and support your argument, as opposed hoisting off your fantasy life as stated fact…

492. CaptainKirok - June 6, 2013

My thoughts on the scene:

When evaluating this scene for sexism, there are two completely different contexts to consider: 1) that of the characters, and 2) that of the filmmakers.

1. If we put aside the purpose of the scene and the intentions of the filmmakers for a moment, and simply consider the actions of the characters, then I would strongly defend Kirk in this scene. I do not think he knew what she was doing until he looked, AND at that point he had no reason to trust her. She, on the other hand, was stepping over some professional boundaries by bringing up his sexual reputation and undressing in the same room as him. He was not a perv or a peeping tom and he did not misuse his position of authority. And she was not a victim.

2. The second way to evaluate the scene is to consider whether the filmmakers were in some way guilty of sexism while making this movie. And this is a far more complicated issue. On the one hand, Star Trek should be progressive. It is set hundreds of years in the future, and it has always aspired to show us a future that is generally positive. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to expect Star Trek to include strong female characters in a variety of roles, and strong characters of different ethnicities and species. It should also, I think, demonstrate a future that is far less repressed with regard to gender and sexuality. There is no logical reason why we shouldn’t see bisexual characters and polyamorous characters and certainly male characters that can wear skirts and female characters that aren’t limited to skirts or dresses. And so, as far as Star trek being sexist, it absolutely is sexist. Although there are moments where it rises above the prejudices and limited norms of our world, it fails to do so with any consistency. In the old days, 6/7 of the recurring crew were men, and 3/3 of the main characters were men. The Next Generation did a little better, but the main main characters were still men. They tried putting men in little dresses but chickened out after a season or two. Then we got Janeway, but to me it seemed that they never really allowed her to be a well-rounded character. Then we got 7 of 9, and to me, her outfit was more gratuitous and offensive than the Alice Eve scene. Anyway, my point here is that when Star Trek portrays the future in such a way that the same sex and gender imbalances that we have had in the past continue to exist in the future, it is somewhat guilty of sexism. And it is fair for people to say that they expected better from Star Trek.

But, on the other hand, is Star Trek PARTICULARLY sexist? In other words, is Star Trek more gratuitous, and more sexist, than the average show or movie? In one way, yes, Star Trek is worse than the average show… six out of the seven main characters are men, and that is a worse ratio than most shows nowadays, no doubt about it. However, this is a remake, after all, of the original show, and the characters were established at that time. This doesn’t really make it less sexist, but it does, to SOME degree (not completely), excuse the filmmakers. The filmmakers have, though, made an effort to increase the importance of character of Uhura. I didn’t see her merely as Spock’s girlfriend, either. I thought she came off as strong, caring, and intelligent.

But generally, I do not think Star Trek is particularly sexist – and I don’t think Star Trek into Darkness was particularly sexist. As far as the Alice Eve scene goes, I don’t think it was a great scene, by any means. But I don’t think it shows that the filmmakers are overly misogynistic. I don’t think it shows that they think of women as nothing more than objects that are there to titillate men. I think it certainly had a purpose – it foreshadows the possibility of romance between Kirk and Carol. And I really don’t think Kirk comes out looking like a creep. In fact, I think Carol is portrayed as the one who is in charge in that scene. She’s the one with control.

To some extent, I also feel that while other shows are set in the present day get off easy with their stereotyped portrayals of men and women, Star Trek is expected to always rise above that and be progressive. And while I share the hope that it will be progressive, I think sometimes some of the filmmakers just want to tell a good story, and social justice and progressiveness might not be their priority. And I can kind of forgive that. Although social justice is of the utmost importance, sometimes it’s okay to just tell a story.

So to sum up my position, I think:
1) Kirk did nothing wrong in that scene
2) Star Trek is sexist insofar as it perpetuates rigid sex and gender norms
3) Star Trek has a male/female character imbalance and that is sexist
4) Otherwise, it is no more sexist than the average show or movie or person next door

493. pauln6 - June 7, 2013

Keachick – FYI – I wasn’t particularly bothered by the underwear scene, it’s just indicative of the writers’ wider approach to the female characters, which needs some adjustment, and if they become aware of this issue and it airs the problems then I’m willing to milk it for all its worth. In-story, it was meant to single Carol out alongside her earlier comments that she was aware of his reputation and she isn’t going to fall for it. It placed him in the role of awkward and her in the role of control and foreshadows the dynamic of a future, more equal relationship. It’s only the full on camera shot of Eve that is gratuitous because it there purely to titillate the male audience.

Trek certainly isn’t as sexist as a lot of movies but it is definitely guilty of featuring at least twice as many men as women overall, and the new franchise definitely pigeonholes its women in certain roles. The big problem is that they fall flat with their guest cast. They could do a lot better.

494. Karen - June 7, 2013

@491 Phil

Strongly seconded, Phil, every word! The derailing is getting very very tiresome!

495. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 7, 2013

Karen/Phil – I am NOT derailing anything. I simply wrote a comment on what another poster here had quoted. This –

“These days, as likely as not, when an actor strips down, he’s also shedding much of the individual character he has otherwise worked so painstakingly to create. He becomes (gasp!) an object” — BEN BRANTLEY

How should we interpret “strips down”? I would think that most people would interpret it as I did, ie when actors bare parts or all of their naked bodies. Ben Brantley’s statement is insulting. Our character/personality is contained WITHIN our being, physical body – NOT in what we wear. The person does not become an object nor were they ever an object. The person is deemed an object by people like Ben Brantley. We are born naked. Does that make babies objects?

Perhaps I am seeking too much of an idealistic or fantasy world, if you like. However, you, Phil, keep pouring your own negative projections like referring to the sight of a (near) naked human being as being p*rn. I find that very insulting and demeaning. Then again, a lot of men refer to their own genitalia as “junk”. I guess that says it all – lack of genuine respect for their own humanness.

496. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 7, 2013

Karen/Phil – I am NOT derailing anything. I was commenting on what another poster quoted here –

“These days, as likely as not, when an actor strips down, he’s also shedding much of the individual character he has otherwise worked so painstakingly to create. He becomes (gasp!) an object” — BEN BRANTLEY’

What exactly am I cherry picking? How is one to interpret “strips down”? I think that most people would think that it means to remove clothing and bare part or all the body. What has clothing got to do with individual character? The nature/character/personality is contained WITHIN the physical body/being. It is an ignorant, demeaning and insulting statement.

(Don’t know what happened to the other comment I posted)

497. Curious Cadet - June 7, 2013

@496 Keachick,

Did you actually read the article? It pretty accurately sums up why the Alice Eve scene was there, and what doing it did to the character in my opinion. And Ben Brantley makes an excellent point about including nudity for nudity’s sake where it has little meaning otherwise.

While I agree with your position as I understand it, that in the future we will hopefully be liberated from social taboos revolving around the body, the fact is movies are made for an audience steeped in them. Unless the point of a scene is to show how evolved we have become socially, then the audience only has their current filters through which to view it. There was no set up for the former expectation, therefore, the audience had little choice but to interpret through their own limited values.

From The New York Times:

Showing It All, Revealing Nothing

A spate of (mostly male) lack of clothing on stage this season is a reminder that being nude is not the same as being naked.

http://nyti.ms/13lMkAJ

498. Mark - June 7, 2013

@477 Pauln6-

“I thought Bones did fine in the movie. People seem to think he got less because the supporting cast were elevated. He probably got almost as much as all the preceding movies (except maybe STVI) if you go back and look more carefully.”

I agree that he had a good amount of screen time in this film but I think what people want more of (including myself) is some great scenes with Bones AND Kirk and Spock. We had one brief, great moment with the three of them discussing and classic Bones and Spock banter, and then too soon it was over.

I think it’s great Uhura has a larger presence in the films now (the relationship thing with Spock aside), but it’s seems that you can’t say that you prefer the Spock/Bones/Kirk trio without someone claiming you hate Uhura and her bigger part. I don’t, I just find the classic triumvirate to be much more entertaining and the chemistry between the actors to be much more interesting.

That being said I can’t say enough how much I want Uhura as well as Carol to have other opportunities to be officers first, instead of just being Uhura, Spocks girlfriend, or Carol, The pretty blond scientist who is brilliant BUT OH HERE LOOK SHES IN HER UNDERWEAR! I want to see Uhura translating and cracking codes from other languages and Carol being a BAMF with all the kickass weapons she can create. Carol Marcus is brilliant and could probably rival Spock with her knowledge of science. I’d like to see some of that :)

499. Basement Blogger - June 7, 2013

Evil Hollywood does it again. They again objectify a person with more naughty stuff. This time it’s Superman! In the upcoming Man of Steel, instead of showing his underwear, this time he has none. Oh, the humanity.

Here’s Star Trek’s favorite satirist, Stephen Colbert to represent our outrage and spew his venom for us.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426874/june-05-2013/commando-of-steel

500. Phil - June 7, 2013

@496. You are protesting to much, Rose, and it’s painfully obvious you didn’t read the material. Do your homework.

501. Karen - June 7, 2013

@496

Look, either you truly don’t understand the concept of context, in which case go read about it, or you’re wilfully misrepresenting anything said by anyone who’s poking holes in your argument. Either way, it is very tiresome.

For the last time. For the record. It’s not the underwear or the amount of skin showing. It is the reason for it and the way it’s portrayed and what it’s saying about the character.

And as for saying clothes aren’t relevant, you might try learning a bit about the craft of acting. For actors, clothes are an intrinsic part of their characterisation.

And as for Superman with no clothes, I’ll just bet he’s not filmed soft core pawn-style in MoS.

502. Red Dead Ryan - June 7, 2013

There is one basic thing to consider about the underwear scene:

Does it serve the story in concrete ways? If the answer is no, then the scene wasn’t at all necessary or called for.

Take the scene out of the movie, and the audience wouldn’t miss it.

That simple.

503. Karen - June 7, 2013

@502 RDR

Indeed! Or if there is a nugget of useful info, reframe it. But specifically, was there any narrative purpose in her stripping down? No. None. And at the end of the day, it’s all about the narrative purpose.

504. CaptainKirok - June 7, 2013

This Ben Brantley quote you all are discussing is one man’s opinion about what it means when a character undresses in a film. What he expresses is not a fact. It is an opinion. AND, he even says that objectification is “as likely as not,” which means that sometimes it is NOT objectification.

Now, some people who saw the Star Trek movie were not offended. And, many people who do indeed care about social justice and gender equality did not think the scene was offensive or gratuitous.

It isn’t that they didn’t read the article! It’s that they disagree with it! It is not at all clear that Carol Marcus’s character was shredded down by her undressing. By boldly undressing with Kirk in the room, she showed tremendous confidence and cockiness.

The movie would have functioned fine without the scene, but it would have changed the movie in a way that is far more fundamental than many of you seem to be seeing. This scene was the first spark between Kirk and Carol. Without it, or without an alternative flirtatious scene, there would be no hint of their possible romantic future.

505. Karen - June 7, 2013

Yes indeed, because these writers are such untalented hacks there was no way imaginable they could have shown us the sparkage between Kirk and Marcus without the gratuitous underwear scene.

Really? Is that it? Because damn. I could’ve sworn they had more talent than that.

So I guess I’m just imagining all those wonderful romcommy films of yesteryear, like His Girl Friday, where the sparkage was off the charts and yet! Somehow! No gratuitous underwear scenes!

506. Phil - June 7, 2013

@504. Did we watch the same movie? Carol seemed frosty toward him pretty much through out. What little chemistry there was seemed to be between Marcus and McCoy.

507. Phil - June 7, 2013

I know what was missing! That harp music, with the flourishes when she was telling him to turn around!!!

508. Karen - June 7, 2013

@507 Phil

Or some slinky clarinet. You know the kind I mean. *g*

509. Curious Cadet - June 7, 2013

@504. CaptainKirok,

Nobody ever said that quote was some kind of axiom. It is an interesting perspective that I happen to agree with.

As for factual statements, try this. Abrams said in his interview with Conan O’Brien that this was a “Kirk” moment, because “you know, he’s ‘Captain Kirk'”, complete with the ‘wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more’ implication that Kirk was a womanizer.

Even Abrams in defending himself confirms why that scene is there. It’s so Kirk can ogle an almost naked female, and the audience can join in. Is it offensive on its face? Not really. But what kind of message does it send? Arguably it sends exactly the message Abrams intended — and it’s juvenile and it ain’t pretty.

510. Karen - June 7, 2013

@509 CC

Actually, I think it is pretty offensive on its face. It’s two guys yuk yuk yukking it up about ogling a mostly naked woman in the name of entertainment. Women totally excluded except for objectified sexual gratification purposes.

Yeah. So. Sorry. Abrams not helping himself at all, for my money.

511. Curious Cadet - June 7, 2013

@510 Karen,

Meaning, a woman stripping down to her underwear is not in of itself offensive. It’s the context.

But yeah, Abrams and Conan are deplorable … I’ve pretty much lost any respect I ever had for Abrams after STID. His tone in that interview was so unbelievably patronizing.

512. Karen - June 7, 2013

@510 CC

Ah, I get you! Sorry. And absolutely, context is king. Or queen, as the case may be. *g*

As for Abrams … yeah. I just don’t know. I don’t know how he can so completely not get it. He’s not an old fart. He’s us. He’s now. And yet he’s so wrong and can’t even see how wrong he is. Which makes me sad for the future.

513. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 9, 2013

There was no link given to the New York Times article by Ben Brantley. I was, I repeat, commenting on the actual quote that was posted. Why should I know about such an article? I don’t live in New York nor do I subscribe to the NYT.

I am still incensed by the implications of what Ben Brantley has written, context or no context. It reeks of discrimination at its most basic level…

514. Phil - June 9, 2013

@513. Well, if you want to be incensed by what was written, it might be a good idea to actually read it first.

515. Harry Ballz - June 9, 2013

(tongue firmly in cheek)

In the new Superman movie they have Henry Cavill stripped to the waist, showing his bare chest!

Does this scene serve the story? Does it move the story forward? NO!

I am both shocked and outraged that any movie studio would resort to such sexist behaviour!

Keep the actor IN the blue suit with the big “S” on the chest or else, dangit, I’m not taking the kiddies to see it!

516. Basement Blogger - June 10, 2013

Okay, I wonder what our Harry Ballz feels about Alice Eve in her underwear?

517. Phil - June 10, 2013

I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here….

518. Harry Ballz - June 10, 2013

@516

Alice Eve in her underwear? Why, yes, I WOULD like to “feel about”!

519. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 10, 2013

I did read the quote and said what I thought of it.

Provide me with the link to the entire article, which, afaik, is not on this thread. Otherwise, I do not need to do anything. If people are going to simply quote one statement made by an author of an article that I don’t know anything about and not provide access to same so that I can read the article in its entirety because they deem context to be so important, then so be it.

My comments stand. The social implications of Ben Brantley’s comments are seen everywhere and they are not good. How dare he discriminate and dismiss people, characters, actors simply because they choose to shed some clothing? This plays right into the crap that because a woman is in a pair of shorts and t-shirt this means that if she gets sexually assaulted/raped, then she must be “asking for it” because of what she was or was not wearing. Disgusting.

520. Phil - June 10, 2013

@519. Well, you can’t say you weren’t warned. All you are doing is embarrassing yourself at this point…

521. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 10, 2013

Cut the crap, Phil.

Moderator?

522. CaptainKirok - June 10, 2013

I agree with Keachick, yet again.

What was she warned about, anyway?

523. Matt Wright - June 10, 2013

Let’s all behave like adults here and not start pretending people can’t handle this or that or are implied to be stupid, etc. This thread has done a relatively good job at it until now, so let’s keep it that way.

524. Matt Wright - June 10, 2013

@Keachick – Please do diligence if you’re going to get into a debate and do not start claiming you cannot find the Ben Brantley article when it’s easily found on the NY Times website. It’s not behind a paywall.

I found it right away by searching the terms “Ben Brantley nudity” on Google.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/theater/stage-nudity-becomes-ever-less-revealing.html?smid=pl-share

I agree of course that the person who posted the quote should have included a link to the full article.

525. pauln6 - June 10, 2013

Meh, nudity can sometimes be gratuitous but I’m not sure i want to wade in on the debate too heavily. I don’t mind a bit of nudity. US censors need to worry more about levels of violence than they do about nudity. Violence in mainstream Hollywood films is off the charts even for youngsters. I’d rather they were exposed to more boobs and less broken bones personally.

526. Matt Wright - June 10, 2013

@ 525 – Isn’t that the truth. We have such an odd Puritanical hold-over about our bodies in the USA. We can’t see too much midriff or side of a female breast, etc. etc., yet pretty ridiculous amounts of violence (and/or implied violence) is allowed.

527. CaptainKirok - June 10, 2013

525 pauln6

I agree.

528. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 10, 2013

Thank you, Matt Wright.

I guess I could have found the article but I did not feel that I should have to look for it, especially since I was so unimpressed with what had been quoted here. I was also disturbed by the level of sarcasm and dismissive attitudes expressed by a couple of posters here in that they wrote how I obviously did not understand context. Well, they never posted anything that put the quote into any kind of context.

Actually, this is a quote from the Ben Brantley article that I did agree with and found more appropriate –

“A few sets of women’s breasts have occasionally made the cut. But mostly, the unclad actors who have taken over New York and London stages have been men. Make that young men, all in the possession of gleaming, sculptured, hairless torsos that come from long acquaintance with personal trainers and electrolysists and are, to be honest, mostly interchangeable.

As naked people go, they tend to be less erotic than aesthetic, and they are usually about as sexy as Grecian urns. As for their being revealing in any less than an obvious sense, forget about it. When one of these actors takes off his clothes, he’s putting on the set of armor that is this era’s regulation gym-toned body.”

He was referring mainly to what occurs on stage.

Film is slightly different and what has been discussed on these threads is what is shown on film, in particular Star Trek movies.

The really peculiar aspect of all this is that I made a comment around December 2011/January 2012 on this site about studios’ getting actors, like Chris Pine, to turn themselves into the next Hollywood *muscle-mutt, which is actually not always that attractive, and querying how unhealthy this might be for the actors. I have already been saying some of this stuff way back when…sad but true…:/

* I think that was the term I used, something like that.

The reality is that Chris Pine looks his best, his loveliest, just the way he is, and having the weight and body shape that he feels most comfortable in, because that is who he is – beautiful – “Perfect just as he/she is, with his/her many faults”.

529. CaptainKirok - June 10, 2013

524 Matt Wright

Be fair and consistent, though. At 336, we had Phil admitting he hadn’t even seen the clip in question, and yet he was taking sides and being really forceful about it. I didn’t see you telling him to see the movie. Why not?

As for Keachick commenting on Ben Brantley, she has every right to disagree with his broad generalized claim if she wants to. She doesn’t need to read a whole article to know she disagrees with what is being said. She was already in the debate when the Ben Brantley comment was introduced. And I think she didn’t feel the need to go searching for an article to know that she was offended by something he wrote.

I think this also gets to the point keachick made in 461 and 483 when she said “Please – do not shove other people’s reviews or stats. Enough already.”

You don’t just get to bring in some alternative piece of literature or study or argument that supports your position, and then sit back and assume you have won the debate because you have found someone who agrees with you. This sort of approach assumes that to defeat your position, your opponent needs to not only reply to your comments, but also refute the work of people you are citing.

Both sides can do that. But you are allowed to disagree with me even if I give you a bunch of articles and books to read and you don’t read them. Similarly, keachick is allowed to have her own opinion even if she hasn’t read some certain article.

530. Phil - June 10, 2013

@529. Go back and re-read post 336. The two of you are just arguing for the sake of argument now.

531. CaptainKirok - June 10, 2013

530 Phil

Both sides can also say that.

532. Phil - June 10, 2013

@531. You are getting amusing, too. And I like Pizza.

Yeah, it’s all silly now. Time to move on.

533. Karen - June 10, 2013

@532 Phil

Yeah. It’s been fun, but the important stuff has been said, I think, and the hold outs aren’t going to see the point.

534. CaptainKirok - June 10, 2013

I agree. The holdouts don’t seem to be getting the point.

535. Matt Wright - June 10, 2013

Well it looks like we have a general consensus from the frequent commenters that this topic has run its course. So with that, I think I will now close the comments for this article.

I’m glad everybody generally behaved themselves, it’s nice to see people have a decent exchange of ideas, etc.

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