Editorial: With Lydia Wilson as latest addition to Star Trek Beyond cast, can we expect a strong female role or another Carol Marcus?


Lydia Wilson has just been announced as the latest addition to the growing call sheet for Star Trek Beyond, currently filming in Vancouver. As usual, no one has any clue as to what her role might be (although there is plenty of speculation abound). I am excited about the addition of another female presence on the screen, but I remain cautiously optimistic after our “strong female role model” Carol Marcus turned into a one-trick pony designed to catch Kirk’s (and the audience’s) romantic interest.

Lydia Wilson, while you may not know her name, has built herself a rather impressive on- and off-screen resume. She is perhaps most famous for her roles in the time-travel themed romantic comedy About Time and sci-fi romance Never Let Me Go. Wilson has also made her mark in British theater and on television, appearing in shows Ripper Street and Misfits. Will Lydia’s new mystery character, along with Sofia Boutella and Zoe Saldana’s Uhura make for a more balanced film this time around? One can only hope.

What went wrong with Carol Marcus?
It’s been no secret that I personally was not the biggest fan of the Carol Marcus underwear scene in Star Trek Into Darkness. And, I’m not alone in that feeling. Even Damon Lindelof, one of the film’s writers, apologized for the “gratuitous” scene being written into the film.

I won’t reiterate the details of my arguments as to why this particular scene rubbed me the wrong way. For that, I invite you to read my article from just after STID hit theaters. What I will remind you of, however, is that Carol, played by the beautiful and talented Alice Eve, started as a strong, independent, intelligent character who just happened to be female. In that one short little scene in the back of that shuttlecraft, the writers ceremoniously undid everything they had set her character up to be. They turned her from role model into squeeze-of-the-week love interest.


The role of women in Star Trek
Star Trek has had its share of good moments and its bad when it comes to women of the 23rd (and beyond) century. Overall, I’d have to give Star Trek pretty high marks for its treatment of women in general, extra credit given to a smattering of cringeworthy moments when each of the series and movies are analyzed as products of their respective times (well, maybe with the exception of ENT).


The latest incarnation of Trek, however, has left something of a bitter taste in my mouth when it comes to the representation of the “fairer sex” on screen. Star Trek (2009) wasn’t half bad. It wasn’t outrightly sexist, in my opinion, but we didn’t get to see a lot of female action, save for Uhura’s badass communications skills. I give some slack to the writers for having to work with an almost exclusively male main cast, gifted to them straight from the 1960’s.

Star Trek Into Darkness took a step in the wrong direction, with Uhura being relegated to Spock’s overly emotional love interest and Dr. Carol Marcus… well… you know. Let’s just say I’ll be happy if this trend doesn’t continue.

The two leading men with our leading lady, who may no longer be our last hope for strong women in STB

Will Star Trek Beyond break the mold?
One can only hope that with a new director and, perhaps most importantly, a new set of writers, we’ll get to see Lydia, Sofia, and Zoe shine in Trek 13.

Speculation is abound as to what role Lydia could be playing in Beyond. Although none of these rumors have any indication of ties with reality, let’s go over them anyways (and speculate more in the comments!). The front runners for Lydia’s role are currently:

  • A Starfleet captain who challenges Captain Kirk
  • The president of the United Federation of Planets (unlikely given Wilson’s youth)
  • Bones’s ex-wife
  • Leading love interest
  • Gender-bender Khan (I just made this up. Let’s start this rumor!)
  • ???

Like I said, I remain hopeful at the present time. With so little information out there, a lot of things could go wrong or right with Star Trek Beyond between now and its summer 2016 release. Here’s hoping for: a good script, good director, good villain, good action scenes, more exploration away from Earth, humanist viewpoints, and a strong female character.



Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

She is playing perhaps a Kirk or a Marcus.

Why don’t we hope for a compelling story first and then worry about details…… The guys rebooting trek have no imagination. I’ m assuming they found it too difficult to come up with new characters and new stories. Too bad. A future 100 years after Next Gen would have been fun.

Besides, the status of women on the big screen hasn’t been an issue for over a decade.

I say they’re going to bleach her hair and she’ll be Yeoman Rand.

And yes, I’m joking.

That scene with Carol was a bummer, but Uhura has had great characterization in the new movies. She’s a very strong and competent character.

Young monarch of an alien race. I liked that concept in the TNG episode The Dauphin, but it could have been better executed.

Regarding “Speculation is abound”: The word “abound” is a verb, not an adjective, so that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Otherwise, great piece. I agree with much of what you’ve written above. Carol Marcus’s underwear scene, while pleasing from a visual standpoint, was a smack in the face of what a phenomenally written Carol Marcus was before INTO DARKNKESS>

I read an interesting article/review of “The Man From U.N.C.L.E” film. Basically talking about the need by studios to recreate every series from the 1960s into a big screen adaption and possibly a franchise. Some will survive and some will fail (Lone Ranger for example).

The good thing about this rebooted version of Star Trek is that it has had its dry run already with 2 films in the bucket. It’s a different cast and a different feel. Plus, Trek has been a franchise for a very long time. So there is a very good chance that this next film will be quite good. In many ways, it has to succeed past the last two productions or face dying off completely.

I guess we’ll never know until 2016. I am at present, looking forward to this production. Hope it works out.

Hey, Leroy, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you….

I saw Lydia in a couple of things, and she is a nice/ok actress. Assuming all those rumors about potential characters are more than rumors, I think she is too young to play the president of the Federation, or Bones’ ex-wife or a young captain. She could be a love interest, but I would be happy if she is just a very competent engineer helping run Engineering if Simon is really not going to have that much screen time.

@ Ted: “the status of women on the big screen hasn’t been an issue for over a decade.”

Please. Stop trolling. I mean, you are trolling us, right? Right? RIGHT?? Oh, wait, you are not? Oh, boy, oh, boy. Where. To. Start. SIGH.


I laughed about your Rand comment, but Janice need to be a blond. Rand doesn’t even need to be white, and frankly, she shouldn’t if they are ever going to bring her on board. Some diversity would be amazing there.

@Kayla Lacovino,

Here, I feel you, I do feel you.

“I won’t reiterate the details of my arguments as to why this particular scene rubbed me the wrong way.”

Speaking as a heterosexual male, that scene rubbed me the right way. But, I’m not particularly looking to be rubbed in that way from a Star Trek movie. It was certainly a cheap ploy, but I can’t say that I minded it all that much. I suppose Enterprise had already broken me in to overt sexuality in Trek, and in the absence of STID appealing to my mind, I had to derive whatever pleasure I could from it, even if it be of the cheap, carnal sort.

Somehow, it seemed even less tastefully done in STID than in Enterprise, though. I guess because the scene in question was so obviously contrived for the single purpose of showing Alice Eve in her undies. If it had involved or led to some sort of relationship issue between Kirk and Carol (as with the Trip/T’Pol relationship in Enterprise), that would have justified it more. But, surprisingly (or maybe not) there was not the least smidgen of relationship substance between Kirk and the woman we know to be his future mate in the Prime timeline. Kirk is portrayed as finding Carol attractive in STID, but that is nothing special for BR’s Kirk character, whom one might describe as oversexed (in his portrayal within the context of the BR Trek movies).

#7. BatlethInTheGroin – August 19, 2015

I think you’ve finally caught a live one there. Not to mention, in the phrase ” plenty of speculation abound” isn’t “plenty” redundant?

“Gender-bender Khan (I just made this up. Let’s start this rumor!)”

I have to say that this is pretty funny.

Having Khan’s arc take him through sexual reassignment surgery, perhaps in aid of him seeking to fulfill the urges for Kirk that he felt during their time together in STID, would almost certainly come across as campy. But, still, gender-bender Khan is the most interesting idea for this movie that I’ve seen so far. And I’d rather see this movie go campy and interesting than go the mind-numbing GOTG route. Sadly, it seems we’re in for the latter.

Kirk oversexed? Hardly!

I doubt the writers will dare have Kirk demonstrate any kind of sexuality at all, given all the asinine complaints made over the briefest of scenes.

Gosh, it seems that neither a man or woman is allowed to be deemed strong and intelligent if they are shown as anything other than being fully clothed. Somehow there is this idea that if any clothing is removed (for whatever reason), then that immediately means that the intelligence and other positive characteristics get automatically reduced/denounced.

Kayla – You disappoint me. Please – see what is going on here. This stuff is just another insidious form of patronising sexism, perpetuated by insecure people.

A human being is NOT what he/she wears or doesn’t wear nor by the money/possession a person may have.

WE, as human beings, are FAR MORE than these things and to obsess in the way that so many have is part of the “problem”, not any solution.

Kayla, Justin Lin will bring a better balance in this regard than the crappy Lindelof-Orci frat-boy crap we saw in the last movie. His FAST movies had strong women who rose above the typical action movie babe status that unfortunately is what we usually get in summer movies.

@ Keachick

What a bizarre post???

Kayla, and others interested in present-day representation of women in movies, there was a good discussion the other day on “q” … the CBC radio show.

Verdict: Nope. Very little progress.

Hot, young, svelte, but oh by the way she can really kick ass. And she’s the only female in the main cast.

America is so consumed with men v women, black v white and religion v science. Just get on with life like the rest of the world!

she could be Nurse Christine Chapel… :)

Everyone talks about the underwear scene. And the underwear scene was stupid. But what is a bigger betrayal of the Carol Marcus character is that the story then forgets to do anything else with her Kirk relationship. The 9/11-obsessed writers are too busy arranging for Kirk to give a silly speech about Constitutional values to think about where this pair is going next.

He does not even comfort her after she is traumatized by watching John Harrison smoosh her dad’s craggy features into goop.

If the movie were up to the standards of something like Raiders of the Lost Ark, it would at least bother to pretend like Kirk had a future to resolve with this person, even if she were going to be swapped out next movie for a new squeeze.

14. Keachick

I agree with you Keachick. That scene did not bother me, and did not make me think less of Carol as a scientist, or a women.

Actuially it made me wonder, where is the futurized invention that helps people get dressed? Star Trek – TMP used one in the Persis Khambatta shower scene, and I wondered if nuTrek had such an invention as well.

I recall that Persis had some solid religious objections to nudity, so making that scene was approached with care and sensitivity, but the producers wanted that in the movie, and in my opinion it should have gone further to avoid the dreaded “G” rating.


Why would V’Ger need a shower to beam Ilia into the Enterprise?

What was on its mind?

I wonder?

Hmmm. Judging by the ending of Star Trek – TMP…

It was SEX!

14. Keachick

Spot on and well said


The scene in question wasn’t gratuitous. It was the setup for a comedic reaction by Kirk. Could they have filmed it in a way that wasn’t just a pin-up pose? Yes. But, the way I look at it, IF they could have gotten away with it in the 60’s, I can see that very same scene…a comedic look at the awkwardness of the situation…being filmed with Shatner’s Kirk, with a woman in her sexy underwear. “sexy” was a huge part of TOS. It just was. I loathe political correctness and revisionists who say “…well…that was a different time.” Yes it was, But that IS Star Trek. Like it or not, it IS a part of the body of work that people are fans of. I wish people would stop trying to apply the revamped sensibilities of the spin-offs to the original series. It is a shoe that does not fit, nor should it be expected to.

Lastly, I think it also serves the character well to underscore that she is a professional…one who doesn’t think twice about disrobing in front of Kirk. We know of this affinity for the ladies, but Carol doesn’t. By not overthinking the scenario she demonstrates that, in her mind…regardless of what Kirk thinks, or what the audience thinks…in the mind of Carol Marcus, she is on equal ground with Jim Kirk. It’s not man and woman, it’s Starflleet with Starfleet getting the job done. Again, I think the pin-up pose could have been more tastefully composed by JJ without compromising the intended humor of the scene…but as far as the comedic intent and sexual overtones of the scene itself, I have no problem with it.

Carol Marcus in her underwear added nothing to the movie, but for me that scene wasn’t a big deal. It was the threesome scene that I found particularly distasteful.

I’m hoping the author attributing this as a problem with the new trek cause I can’t help but think of Voyager and seven of nine. As beautiful as Jeri Ryan is, it felt so wrong to watch her in every scene. Especially with her being the only one in a skin tight outfit. it seemed so ” Yeah, we might let you women do important things from time to time but don’t forget about your REAL place in society.

Even TOS was sexist.

Well, if Scotty is going to have a diminished role due to Simon Pegg’s contribution behind the camera, then maybe she’ll fill in as an engineer of the Enterprise or another Federation ship. Heaven knows we could use another Kaylee Frye (Firefly) tweaking a spaceship’s innards.

Why does it not surprise me that Rose can’t see the underwear scene for the stupid, sexist, juvenile, idiotic scene it was?

Kayla is 100% correct and she clearly explained the difference between the Carol scene and other scenes of scantily clad actors/actresses. And really, it’s common sense and only a moron cant see the difference.

Frankly, I rolled my eyes in the theatre when I saw that scene.

Do I think Alice Eve is attractive? Absolutely. Drop dead gorgeous and she was in incredible physical shape and looked sexy as hell. I also find it annoying in movies and TV when actors will be in bed and have to do really unnatural things to hide their nudity.

But good God…if there is ONE scene that shows you how ignorant, untalented, juvenile, immature and clueless the writers of STID are, its that one. I can just imagine the snickering in the writers room when they come up with that one or the drool collecting on the floor when they all huddled around to watch the scene. I bet the writers were all “on set” that day “just in case there were script questions”. Yeah right.

And the fact is, this isnt just about feminism or the treatment of women on screen. It was a STUPID scene in the context of what was happening and reduced Kirk to little more than a drooling uncontrollable sexual harrasser. He’s lucky he wasnt brought up on charges. At the very least, the character would have lost a lot of respect. Coupled with the remarks about Chapel, its as if these hack writers had no idea who James Kirk was.

It was shameful. It didnt serve the film or the characters. It didnt sell one extra ticket. And the fact it was written, filmed, edited and not one person along the way saw what many, many of us saw immediately upon viewing is really rather shocking.

Lets hope Pegg has a little more respect for women than Orci and Co.

As long as she isn’t wearing a shiny silver catsuit with breast lifters.

22. jonboc – August 20, 2015

Lastly, I think it also serves the character well to underscore that she is a professional…one who doesn’t think twice about disrobing in front of Kirk. … By not overthinking the scenario she demonstrates that, in her mind…regardless of what Kirk thinks, or what the audience thinks…in the mind of Carol Marcus, she is on equal ground with Jim Kirk.

Paramount really should be much more grateful to have fans that will read meaning into whatever trite rubbish the studio puts up on the screen. I’d agree there was no “overthinking” in that scene—not by the characters, anyway. Your “interpretation” is undone by Carol’s coy behavior about disrobing wherein she asks Kirk to turn around but then won’t tell him why. Then, when Kirk turns back around (because the whole purpose of having Carol refuse to tell him why she wanted him to turn around was so that he wouldn’t have a reason not to turn back around and accidentally see her in her undies—riotously funny and razor-sharp humor there), Carol becomes tense and demands that he turn around again. So much for “not thinking twice about disrobing in front of Kirk.” She actually does literally think twice about it—once when she initially tells Kirk to turn around, and a second time when she gets tense and demands that he turn around again. And it was obviously not her intention to disrobe in front of Kirk, or she wouldn’t have told him to turn around! Twice!

IF they could have gotten away with it in the 60’s, I can see that very same scene…a comedic look at the awkwardness of the situation…being filmed with Shatner’s Kirk, with a woman in her sexy underwear.

Firstly, this bit of sophistry doesn’t mean anything because such an incident never happened in TOS. Whether it would have happened given a different set of circumstances is not implied by any evidence. Secondly, what did happen in TOS with respect to Kirk and his female love interests was never as trite and superficial as the scene in question from STID. TOS Kirk either falls in love with women or seduces them in aid of combating enemy aggression, and on occasion both. The old catching a glimpse of a pretty lady getting dressed gag goes back to the silent movie era, along with putting a sharp object on a chair before some unsuspecting victim sits down on it. Is that the best that these 21st Century artists with $190M and a year’s time at their disposal could come up with? Apparently it was.

@jonboc Product of the time, totally.

Star Trek embodied the low-calorie version of the sexual liberation of that era. What we’re seeing now is this puritanical manicheanism that cannot have a character that is objectified sexually that is complex enough to also be strong and competent and an individual. Sex positive feminism greatly benefited from the attitudes that Star Trek created room for in the public consciousness. And by Jove, we’re all sexual creatures.

The entire cast of Star Trek is a bloody objectification of some sort. Everyone on the bridge crew is an archetypal symbol interwoven with racial overtones to solidify the cold war dream of a post cold war world. Archetypes are reductionist. Carol Marcus’ character was probably the only character that wasn’t an archetype. There was nuance to her. She was actually interesting.

The crew of the enterprise is the most interesting when it becomes complicated. Kirk’s struggle with old age in Wrath of Khan, or the entire bridge crew’s nationalistic racist undertones in Undiscovered Country. What about McCoy’s ethical conflict in Star Trek V where he regretted pulling his father’s plug.

One could argue Carol Marcus was made to be a damsel in distress.

She wasn’t. She was a weapons expert who knew her stuff, solved tough problems, saved McCoy from his distress moment, bought time for the Enterprise to recover somewhat from the attack, stood up to her father, had moral principles. This argument that because they male gazed her for a second as a scene is such pretension nonsense to me.

Having her leg broken was narrative exposition of the danger Khan posed. It was senseless and unsettling. That was the point.

Just because things didn’t go Mary Sue for her character doesn’t imply she was a sex object. What’s damning is that Orci signed off on Mary Suing the rest of the pre-existing cast. Kirk’s guilt and self-doubt was self indulgent. Marcus’ conflict was far more compelling, down to earth, and interesting. If Marcus having an underwear scene was all she did in the movie, I’d understand this concern. But she didn’t. She was a major player with major shit going on.

If this argument was in the least bit credible, it would have been less concerned about Marcus and more concerned about the T&A we saw with the Caitians during Kirk’s 3 some earlier in the film.

You lost me at ‘a strong female character OR another Carol Marcus.’ It isn’t an ‘or.’ One loathsome (and yes, it was that) and gratuitous underwear scene doesn’t disqualify the character from a strong female lead; for instance, was Ellen Ripley’s strength disqualified thanks to that pointless strip at the end of Alien? I still don’t understand the bizarre allegations that neither Uhura or Carol were strong characters in Into Darkness; heck, I was irate at how absurdly phase-weilidng, bad-guy defeating center-stage the COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER was shoved in that movie… but for some odd reason, that wasn’t enough because she had a boyfriend in the movie or something.

Guys, the demand for a strong female character is only hurt by the rejection of Hollywood’s imperfect attempts. It makes you look impossible to please and no one wants to try. Encourage the good instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater over the bad; suggest where Hollywood can improve instead of attacking any effort that isn’t 100% perfect, or you’ll never GET the effort that’s 100% perfect. And stop judging Carol’s entire role in the movie over one (incredibly stupid) scene. That scene ‘undid’ nothing- it was a bump in the road, but it didn’t define or change the course of Carol’s character, nor did it cancel out any of the strength and competency evidenced throughout the whole rest of the movie.

Post in moderation. *sigh*

@Cygnus – lets not also forget Carol’s pose when Kirk looks at her. Its not like she covered up, turned around herself or even appeared shy. Arms somewhat outstretched, leaning slightly back. Sexy post, showing off entire body. Almost saying “look at me. Look at my totally ridiculous bra. Look at my long toned torso. Look at my panties stretched over my pubic mound. Come one, Kirk, look at me!”

Do Orci and Lindelof and JJ have daughters? If they do, I assume they dont mind if people look at their half naked daughters with nothing but sexual desire (when they are of age ofcourse). And I assume they wont mind if someone “peaks” at their dis-robing daughters even when asked not to. I mean, thats not rude, disrespectful or inappropriate, right? Thats fun and boys being boys.

The worst thing is, if they wanted to show Carol in her underwear, they could have written any number of scenes that would have accomplished that within the context of a legitimate reason to do so. They didnt. They simply said hey lets have Alice get naked during the film for no reason just because its sexy.

@31 – regarding Uhura. I think she’s terribly poorly written in both films because of the desire to push the character to the forefront when her position within the franchise and crew would deem her more of a background character. But she’s the only visible minority so they wanted to make her role more important. I can appreciate that.

Unfortunately, pushing the character more doesnt change the fact these are lousy writers. She was so stereotypical emotional whiny, nagging, b!tchy woman.

The problem with the Carol character is they relied on fans knowing the “history” of her from WoK and thus caring more. Outside of that, they didnt give us a reason in THIS film to really care about her. Her link to Admiral Marcus was interesting but was never really paid off because Marcus was himself reduced to a third string role and one dimensional mustache twirling villain.

The framework of this story had a lot more to say. We’ve already established Bob’s truther obsession negatively impacted the story. If Admiral Marcus was a better, deeper more fully fleshed out character, than his daughter would have been too…or at least would have had a greater opportunity to be so.

Interesting. I didn’t see Uhura as particularly whiny or nagging- only calling Spock out on troubling behavior that the film had been identifying as well (essentially, making a legitimate point about his self-destructive behavior). If the complaint was over her personality, I suppose I have nothing to say one way or another. I always judged the ‘lack of a strong female character’ complaints to be over role, character qualities, independence, and competency- which is why I found the complaints over lack of strength in female characters in Into Darkness to be overexagerated. Lacking a bit in depth? Well, yes- but no moreso than anyone else in the film.

However, if I misjudged the criteria- if this is more of an issue of likability and personality traits (which, heck, I find to be more important in a character, too, but I didn’t think that was the discussion we were having), then my reaction to this reaction would be tempered a bit. :-)

I thought they made Uhura somewhat unlikeable in 09. But I wouldnt complain too much about her in that film. Most of the issues were just the poor writing of characters in a military setting.

For example, Uhura demanding Spock, who out-ranked her, to change her ship assignment. She doesnt ask. She tells him. He gives in. Mis-characterization of both.

When Vulcan is destroyed, she follows him into the turbolift. This I didnt mind. They were alone. She tried to show affection. He was stoic. I thought it worked. Let’s presume shes allowed to leave her post whenever she wants.

Her kissing him on the transporter pad in front of Kirk and Scotty? Silly. They already established to us that they were together. It was unprofessional. But they wanted a “funny” reaction shot from Kirk when he finally learns her name (and learns Spock and Uhura are a couple).

Her scolding Kirk “I hope you know what you’re doing”…kinda wishy washy. How about you just sit down and shut up, junior officer.

STID had its issues too. Her crying over Spock in the opening scene. She jeopardized a mission over their relationship.

Then she confronted him while on a dangerous and serious mission in front of their Captain and ignored Kirk’s request to stop. I just thought this was stereotypical “Ugh my gf always wants to talk about our feelings” stuff.

her speaking with the Klingons made sense and portrayed her as brave. I was fine with that.

I’d have to re-watch to get really nit picky. lol Realistically, Spock would “logically” not have gotten involved with her at all. There is motivation for it if we accept the poorly written retcon of Sarek as a supportive father… Spock might have been inclined to seek out a human woman. But its doubtful he’d date a subordinate.

Even if he was not her trainer when they began dating and chose to keep dating, it makes little sense for him to stay with her once in the commander-subordinate relationship. Which quite honestly would have been an interesting sub-story to touch on.

But they missed that one too.

@Andrew (nice name, btw, which I share) – I dont think its a matter of saying a woman cannot be seen as sexy or admired for her physical beauty without also being a strong, competent woman.

Who here did not admire Alice Eve’s beauty before seeing the film (or the scene in question)?

Do we admire Uhura’s beauty? Ofcourse. Had no issue with her undressing in 09. Had no issue with Kirk being in his underwear in that scene. The scene itself was pretty silly. But generally speaking, no issue.

I think the scene in question was just so pointless, so irrelevant, so gratuitous that it really did drag the character down. Its not so much that we say “Carol was nothing but T&A”, its that we’re critical of the writers for that scene. It didnt impact only Carol, but Kirk as well.

Carol was sort of mundane mostly so that scene really over-shadowed the rest of her contribution. On paper she was an expert, smart, strong. But in execution her inclusion in the script was to titillate Kirk and show Bob Orci’s Trek street cred by including a TOS-related side character.

@TUP Cheers on the name. I’m fond of it.

Also, excellent point. I found myself skirting around Uhura because, while moving the plot along, she really wasn’t given much of a story arc. Thus, her replacing McCoy in the Kirk/Spock/McCoy trinity traditionally seen on posters was clearly demographic pandering, which I find offputting. It’s not necessarily an honest representation of the material it’s supposed to represent. Arbitrarily PC would be another way to phrase that criticism, which is disappointing.

After I hit ‘say it’ below and walked away from the computer earlier something hit me upside the head and reminded me of one troublesome fact.

J.J. Trek was not made for star trek fans.

It stands apart from the rest of star trek, philosophically, spiritually, etc. It’s almost aimed at people who might have liked Fast and Furious if it had been in space. The undressing scene, while is justifiable from a ‘sex positive’ view point, it’s isn’t when you consider that the actual 20 – 50 years a trekkie crowd probably didn’t appreciate it at bare minimum because it was a condescending “audiences love objectifying women.” I’m not sure the average star trek fan is of that disposition, honestly, but perhaps my glasses are rose tinted. Despite undue optimism, perhaps it’s more damning that the studio or Abrams or Orci were cynical enough to make the opposite assumption. Perhaps we’re right to take offense by this, if only that it’s a misjudgment of our essential character by those entrusted with the franchise’s future. If that is indeed the case, and because I’m so satisfied by the novel continuations of the prime universe, I believe my response would to them would be: ‘Go to hell.’

It was meant to titillate 13 year old boy. Possibly also persons of the window licking persuasion where self awareness is even less of a concern than applying deodorant regularly.

If it was intended to have any narrative praxis it was meant to italicize Kirk’s sexual predator reputation that was nothing more than a mythic reinterpretation of his ‘seduction strategies’ that saved the Enterprise during the 1960’s TOS. It’s a gross misrepresentation of his character, and it’s unfortunate that if anyone was reduced in that scene, it was Chris Pine’s Kirk into a slobbering child. Kirk’s character is essentially summed up in totality in ‘Where no man has gone before’.

@TUP – You know the weird thing? I’m an Andrew in real life, too. This is a strangely coincidental conversation. :-)

@Zarm – right on! Andrew’s unite. I have a reply to one of your posts in moderation.

I would love to see a strong, seductive villainess. Let’s face it, there WILL be a villain. Might as well be a sexy villain.

They’re still casting? Seriously? At this late date?

Zarm — “…was Ellen Ripley’s strength disqualified thanks to that pointless strip at the end of Alien?”

I was 17. Believe me, it was NOT pointless!

35. TUP – August 20, 2015

“The framework of this story had a lot more to say. We’ve already established Bob’s truther obsession negatively impacted the story.”

Obsession or not, He was ‘part’ of a trio of writers, right?

The war on terror analogy was core to the story. That was the point of the movie! I say that bob’s previous comments about cognitive dissonance he mentioned here at TM, are very revealing.

Indeed, TUP. I do recall you yourself admitting that you would have watched that video I linked. But I never got a response. Could be the impalpable experience of that sad day and the years of NEGLECTING any real search for Justice has created a negative sea change in a lot of people. You will probably see them writing some negative comments in the following emails hating on these words.

But I say, that Bad Robot, Bob Orci and company, did a very patriotic thing with STiD. And, I think it has been overlooked, – with a benign indignant attitude – most likely so that some can go about their lives. But I say the general public, and especially those here at TM, you of whom I simply asked for a review of this ‘testimony’ are not living up to a true American patronage – To Never Forget.

So, I will put it forth for you to review Trekkies… just… one… last… time. So that you can appreciate Star Trek Into Darkness – a bit more.

Not because I believe this testimony whole heartily, Although, after all these years I still can’t see how the facts and testimony presented does not make there points quite clearly and convincing – that the official story of that day is just is NOT possible, and is apparently a generated lie.

That TUP, is why STiD’s message still amazes me. I quite literally tells us to watch out as there will always be those [people in command] who seek to do us harm. – because it can go real dark. But even more importantly STiD says to watch out as we risk awakening that same evil in OURSELVES as our instinct is to seek revenge.

Sound familiar?

Oh yeah, last time. And not because I am involved with this effort in any way or trying to evangelize, but because this is relevant to Star Trek, and more importantly, my country.

Here is the link…

The Link…

Remember, not trying to make a stink, just trying to help some trekkies understand how some feel about that day – AND WHY.

Sorry to have to point this out again, TM. But I never got a response from most here at TM, Although some promised, and it is relevant, however un-tasteful.

OK. Last time…


And a worthy follow up produced later which is even more revealing…


Rumors were swirling about three new ladies joining the new movie. UFP president, starfleet ship captain and Bones’ ex. I’m guessing either Wilson or Sofia is Bones’s ex or the stafleet ship captain. Waiting for the announcement of the third lady to make a better guess. Loving all these new ladies in Star Trek! Trek needs more ladies in commanding and authoritative roles! I’m the kinda guy who like his ladies powerful not the helpless damsel.

#30 Cygnus “Paramount really should be much more grateful to have fans that will read meaning into whatever trite rubbish the studio puts up on the screen..”

Can’t get any more grateful than them giving me another movie! Thank you Paramount!!

“Secondly, what did happen in TOS with respect to Kirk and his female love interests was never as trite and superficial as the scene in question from STID. TOS Kirk either falls in love with women or seduces them in aid of combating enemy aggression, and on occasion both.”

Well, first off, you need to watch the movie again and pay closer attention if you think Carol Marcus was a “love interest” for Kirk. She was a highly qualified weapons specialist, and an attractive one at that. The fact is , TOS Jim Kirk, with a glance, can appreciate beautiful sexy women…be they Mudd’s Women or the dancing girls of Argelius 2….there is no reason alternate-timeline-Kirk can’t do the same.

And, I must add, I applaud your restraint…reading your entire post, not once did you use the word “theme”! Bravo!!

@Jonboc – there is no way to get around one simple truth: TOS took place in the 60’s. In TOS, women werent allowed to be Captain of a Starship. We dont say “oh well, it happened in TOS so its okay now.”

Presenting a less sexist view in modern Trek can be done without fundamentally changing the Kirk character.

I once wrote a long piece about why Kirk “enjoyed” women in TOS and why he never really settled down. I wont rehash, partially because I cant recall the details. But the way Kirk is presented in the BR films is the stereotype of James Kirk, not the real character.

To people that really know the character, they’d say he’s a brash, womanizing swash buckler. But thats not really the case. Unfortunately, the BR writers just werent Star Trek fans so they didnt know.

Come on, Admin- let TUP through! We Andrews don’t have all day, y’know! :-)