Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

[Zuiun]

So would this also apply to the ST V fan dance scene? Or Lt. Ilia in the shower in TMP? Or is this just a non-issue for people to get excised about and pillory JJ Abrams?

No, those scenes have their own issues and there are plenty of people who now look critically at those depictions (even if they were ignored at the time -- as was "standard operating procedure").

The difference is that we supposedly are at a place now where we actively try to NOT objectify women the way they were in the past.

Even so, one could argue that Uhura's sexual allure was being used to lay a trap. Further, the scene was far more suggestive than graphic. Uhura was in silhouette and behind a fan. So the service to the story, while still possibly unnecessary, is handled with far more respect for Nichelle Nichols.

Could the underwear scene in Into Darkness been presented with a similar suggestive, rather than explicit and juvenile, nature? Almost certainly.

I do enjoy the film overall, but this is a BS scene as presented and Abrams' attempts to justify it are a bigger pile of BS.

 

[Bryancd]

I do enjoy the film overall, but this is a BS scene as presented and Abrams' attempts to justify it are a bigger pile of BS.

Justify it? No, I don't see that at all. Have a little fun with it? Clearly JJ is in that clip.

 

[Zuiun]

I'll admit that I'm not up to par on Hollywood contracts, but it seems logical that a contract would include any information about nude/semi-clothed scenes to keep the person informed of what they're signing up for. There are actresses who flat out state that they won't do nude scenes, so any script they get will indicate whether or not nudity will be in the film.

Often they do.

But the sad fact is also that often if a woman wants to get "better" jobs in Hollywood, she can't turn down these types of roles, lest be overlooked down the road. It has become so "normal" in Hollywood to include these kinds of depictions that they are expected and necessary to remain working. Sure, some women have the clout to put their foot down and still get good roles. But there is very strong pressure among the rest to just accept these kinds of situations.

Even the ratings board is slanted by this "normalcy." A fully nude woman will garner, at most, an R rating. A fully nude man causes a fight to prevent an NC-17 rating.

There is an imbalance in the system.

Even in Into Darkness, Abrams has no problem showing only Alice Eve in her underwear, but has to include two women in the scene with Kirk.

 

[Bryancd]

I'm judged here on a constant basis so I'm not worried about that at all. That being said, when it comes to being an advocate for women's issues, I always try to get as many different perspectives on the issue as I can, especially from other women. The Mary Sue is a website I visit daily just to get the scoop on what's happening with women everywhere, and it's not just about irksome topics like this mess. So when I come across this article written by Susana Polo, I decided to share it here so anyone who's interested in reading up on the matter from a woman's viewpoint may do so. I think that's a far better thing for me to do than simply take chunks from her article and reword it in my own way.

Getting closer to that honesty. As someone who doesn't choose to hide behind a false online persona, I find that refreshing. The truth will set you free.

 

[Jeyl]

Getting closer to that honesty. As someone who doesn't choose to hide behind a false online persona, I find that refreshing. The truth will set you free.

Wait. Are you trying to imply that I'm using my online avatar as a means of hiding my true identity so I can avoid being labeled as a feminist in real life? Or are you saying that if I don't use my real name, my comments have no merit? If you want to know my real name, why not just ask?

 

[Bryancd]

No to all of the above except what 's your name?

 

[TheRealMcFly]

Set yourselves free from this thread!

And yet here I am commenting again.

I'm surprised to hear objections to Alice's scene in the film, and here's one specific instance where I really couldn't care less how it supposedly portrays women. Obviously she is not afraid to show her body, and you can find just as much nudity in a Sears underwear ad.

So even if the male to female exposed skin ratio is skewed towards the ladies, it's not really a representation of any particular values in this case. In my opinion people in the future would be more enlightened and carry way less or no shame.

Now, I noticed the cat ladies only have two breasts in this one. But you can't really blame them for not being STV accurate. Lol.

 

[The Mad Professor]

Now, I noticed the cat ladies only have two breasts in this one. But you can't really blame them for not being STV accurate. Lol.

Given the Star Trek V equates with Nemesis in terms of quality (read: terribad-ness), it's not exactly a standard one should follow for Star Trek films...

 

[Vivek]

Alice Eve Strips, Benedict Cumberbatch Showers And Devin Loses His Man Card | Badass Digest
Here is another perspective on the same subject.

I can see why Devin is being targeted for this, of course he didn't even start the debate as Lindelof offered the statement on his own.

I would suggest both scenes were played more from the standpoint of humor as opposed to mysogeny.

Probably so and the scene though unnecessary is little more understandable in the context of the film than when it was shown in the trailer, yet it also feels like it was filmed mainly for showcasing it in the trailer.

Felicia Day » Blog Archive » Start Trek Musings ETC AND SPOILERS SO NO COMPLAINTS
Felicia Day also addressed some more valid concerns about the portrayal of women in the movie.

 

[Proper]

I do enjoy the film overall, but this is a BS scene as presented and Abrams' attempts to justify it are a bigger pile of BS.

You know, there is nothing wrong with debating this movie and expressing all of one's dislikes, but it's hard to justify "big piles" of rants on Mr. Abrams and his character while pretending to speak of what he was attempting.

And my only problem with the scene is that it was way too short. I admit it, I'm just a male pig.

 

[tgreco]

Just saw it. Very entertaining. I loved it right up until the ridiculous role reversal in the warp core. Pegg's line delivery "better get down here...better hurry" was awful. No feeling or emotion to it at all compared to Doohan's delivery of the EXACT same line. Quinto's "Khaaaaaaaan!" was cringe-worthy as were all the lines being swapped over between Kirk and Spock. This strange choice to try and re-do one of the most emotional scenes from the entire Trek movie franchise was a poor decision in my opinion. Also, the fact that Kirk and Spock had many more years of friendship under their belt in TWOK made the feeling of loss much more profound in that movie. All of these moments took me right out of the movie. It's a shame because I really enjoyed it up until that point.

this was the exact moment that I leaned over to my wife and said..."I'm sorry. I can't watch J.J. Abrams **** on the corpse of Star Trek anymore.... and left the theater.

The Klingons looked rediculous. And everything in the movie was a reference to better source material.

Abrams is a hack. Period.

 

[Proper]

this was the exact moment that I leaned over to my wife and said..."I'm sorry. I can't watch J.J. Abrams **** on the corpse of Star Trek anymore.... and left the theater.

The Klingons looked rediculous. And everything in the movie was a reference to better source material.

Abrams is a hack. Period.

You made the right decision to leave. Period.

 

[Zuiun]

You know, there is nothing wrong with debating this movie and expressing all of one's dislikes, but it's hard to justify "big piles" of rants on Mr. Abrams and his character while pretending to speak of what he was attempting.

My comment didn't make any disparaging remarks on Abrams' character, despite what you choose to read into it.

Also, nice edit to your post. The version the forum e-mailed to me from you called me a coward. Feel guilty about disparaging MY character when you accused me of the same?

I have voiced my opinion of the SCENE and the SUPPOSED JUSTIFICATION of it. Nothing more. If you don't agree with that, that's ok. If you want to attack ME personally for it, that's a big pile of BS.

Have a nice day.

 

[Proper]

My comment didn't make any disparaging remarks on Abrams' character...

Just like you didn't make any about Abrams, I didn't make any about you, then.

 

[Zuiun]

I'm surprised to hear objections to Alice's scene in the film, and here's one specific instance where I really couldn't care less how it supposedly portrays women. Obviously she is not afraid to show her body, and you can find just as much nudity in a Sears underwear ad.

It isn't about how much nudity is or isn't shown. It's about the context of it.

In the film, Marcus asks for privacy. Kirk violates that privacy. And the reward for the audience is a nice scene of Alice Eve "posing" in her underwear, instead of reacting like any normal person would and trying to cover up.

The hidden message there is, "hey kids! It's OK that Kirk violated her privacy! Look, you can ogle her, too!"

Now, of COURSE that's not what the filmmakers intended to say. They intended the scene as a "joke." My contention is that it has no place, as presented, in the film. It doesn't serve the story in the way they wanted, and it's a joke that backfires. Also, instead of focusing on Kirk and HIS crass behavior, which was the intent, it focuses on Marcus and her state of undress.

In my opinion people in the future would be more enlightened and carry way less or no shame.

I don't disagree. And Star Trek has even, in the past, attempted to represent that notion (in its first season, The Next Generation attempted to make a commentary about the short skirts in the original series by also having men wear them). But clearly THIS film doesn't present itself as some "enlightened" future state where skin is just skin and people are no-nonsense when changing clothes in front of someone, because the script intentionally made Marcus self conscious about undressing in front of Kirk -- and then exploited her feeling of self conscious to give us a gratuitous shot of her body.

 

[Proper]

It isn't about how much nudity is or isn't shown. It's about the context of it.

In the film, Marcus asks for privacy. Kirk violates that privacy. And the reward for the audience is a nice scene of Alice Eve "posing" in her underwear, instead of reacting like any normal person would and trying to cover up.

The hidden message there is, "hey kids! It's OK that Kirk violated her privacy! Look, you can ogle her, too!

No, that's not the "hidden message."

 

[PotionMistress]

I am beginning to view Abrams’ work as the equivalent of fast food…when you’re hungry, it looks and smells great, and as your gobbling it down, it’s sort of satisfying, but after you’ve finished and even before you’ve taken your last bite, you start getting a little queasy, feel lousy and think to yourself, ‘Ugh, it’s just not what I should have had!’

 

[Proper]

I am beginning to view Abrams’ work as the equivalent of fast food…when you’re hungry, it looks and smells great, and as your gobbling it down, it’s sort of satisfying, but after you’ve finished and even before you’ve taken your last bite, you start getting a little queasy, feel lousy and think to yourself, ‘Ugh, it’s just not what I should have had!’

Funny, I don't experience any of these negative elements, but I do experience all the positive ones. Perhaps a tad less theater popcorn?

 

[tgreco]

I am beginning to view Abrams’ work as the equivalent of fast food…when you’re hungry, it looks and smells great, and as your gobbling it down, it’s sort of satisfying, but after you’ve finished and even before you’ve taken your last bite, you start getting a little queasy, feel lousy and think to yourself, ‘Ugh, it’s just not what I should have had!’

I completely agree with this assesment

at the end of the day, Abrams lacked the ability to come up with his own cool villian, so he had to steal one created by better writers.

He had an entire new timeline to run around in, and instead of being creative and original, he was flat out LAZY.

 

[The Mad Professor]

It isn't about how much nudity is or isn't shown. It's about the context of it.

That is the exact thought process that stars like Anne Hathaway use to determine if the nudity their characters have is "worth it" for the sake of the story.

In the film, Marcus asks for privacy. Kirk violates that privacy. And the reward for the audience is a nice scene of Alice Eve "posing" in her underwear, instead of reacting like any normal person would and trying to cover up.

Perhaps the intent behind it was similar to what we saw in Starship Troopers, where soldiers see each other nude all the time and it's not that big of a deal. Granted, in Star Trek, it's a bit different (given that Starfleet has no real canonical ground force (I can only assume that the MACO's from Enterprise were phased out or absorbed into the Redshirt Brigade) and there is still some expectation of privacy), but the basic idea is still there.

(in its first season, The Next Generation attempted to make a commentary about the short skirts in the original series by also having men wear them)

A choice I am SO glad they changed their minds on...

- - - Updated - - -

I completely agree with this assesment

at the end of the day, Abrams lacked the ability to come up with his own cool villian, so he had to steal one created by better writers.

He had an entire new timeline to run around in, and instead of being creative and original, he was flat out LAZY.

I don't know about lazy... the fans were clamoring to have Khan show up some time or another in nu-Trek. I think it's a prime example of "giving the fans what they want." Granted, they could have done a MUCH better job keeping Khan under wraps, but whatevs...