Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by King Bob, Jun 6, 2014.
I never thought I'd say this, but the older I get the more I prefer them in the underwear.
Yeah, that came out wrong. Just meant that Kirk's expression could have been used for more than it was.
And to those that followed, not sure where you've read outrage into my comments.
Ummmm...physical attraction is usually the first step. That he saw her in her undies probably just sealed the physical deal. As you might recall, Kirk seemed visually intrigued by Carol just on first appearance on the shuttle....so all this bitchin about Carol in her undies is really moot...and ridiculous.
Not you specifically, but the "vocal minority" who think that Alice Eve in underwear is sexist, demeaning, and pornographic. Yes, I've seen those exact words used to describe the 2 second shot.
In that context it's not only ridiculous and prudish, but pretty damn silly.
I know some folks who are fans of the original Battlestar Galactica that thought that the recent Battlestar Galactica series was "pornographic"...or at least, had moments that were "pornographic" to them, as far as they were concerned.
It's sad that so many people don't get the deeper meanings in J.J.'s new trek films. It always seemed clear cut to me. The first movie was all about getting the enterprise crew together, while the second movie was defining what Starfleet would be about.
The first movie came out after Trek had been legitimately dead for several years, and no one was sure if rebooting the original characters could ever work. By Nero messing up the timeline and the enterprise crew still all getting back together, it showed even in our world today that the message and power of Trek could not be stopped. As Old Spock alluded to, the Universe would eventually "right" itself to help everything come back together again (but just different enough to be fresh and unexplored). By the end of the first film, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and crew are together again on the Enterprise and the Star Trek adventures that we all grew up to know and love were about to begin in a fresh way.
The second film was all about defining what Starfleet and Kirk's crew would be about. Because of Nero's timeline incursion (and Harrison's 9-11 style attack), Starfleet was looking to become more clandestine and militaristic, and less about peace and betterment and exploration. It's a tale of two leaders (Marcus vs. Kirk), two visions of star fleet (military conflict vs. explorative peace), and two ships (Vengeance vs. Enterprise). Khan is simply the instigator that brings this all to a head.
Admiral Marcus as Head of Starfleet secretly builds the Vengeance to start a pre-emptive war with the Klingons (and any other hostile aggressor) and has no one to be his good conscience. Kirk lost his dad because of Nero, and was "fathered" more recently by Pike. Kirk loses Pike to Khan, and seeks revenge with the help of his new mentor, Pike's former mentor, Admiral Marcus. Kirk is becoming just like Marcus, except that Kirk's crew and close friends (Spock, McCoy, Scotty) courageously step in to act as his conscience, reminding him of what Starfleet is supposed to be about. The slightly altered parallels to Space Seed and Wrath of Khan remind us that the universe is slightly different, yet still unfolding in similar ways. With Marcus and Khan, Kirk doesn't let evil get the best of him, but takes the higher road and challenges Starfleet (and our post 9-11 world) at his closing speech to do the same, to take up that sacred calling and explorative, peace-seeking mission that Starfleet was originally created for.
The movie ends with (1) Kirk and Enterprise crew in place, (2) Starfleet's mission defined, and (3) the Enterprise crew setting out on their original (yet new and fresh) five year mission. Amazing spectacle, engaging stories and powerful meanings that challenge both the Enterprise crew in the future and us in our world today. What more can Star Trek fans really ask for, and why don't (some) of the veteran fans get it? I have no idea!
Bonus points if this group probably overlaps with the ones complaining that Gal Godot is too skinny to be Wonder Woman or Shailene Woodley isn't pretty enough to play Mary Jane in a Spider-Man movie, or lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants.
I loved abrams interpretation of star trek mainly because of one reason.
In my group of friends I was the sole trekkie up until 2009 and that summer I managed to convince my buddies to come see the new star trek movie, even one girl who was a hardcore star wars fan came along.
We emerged from the theatre that night with every single one of them saying that was awesome.
The movie managed to open them up to star trek and actually got them curious to the older stuff, which prior to the 09 movie they wouldn't have given the time of day.
For into darkness there was no hesitation in us all going to see it and thoroughly enjoying it.
LOL....well, I don't "lose my s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants", but I don't care for it. To me, Wonder Woman is T&A with intellect and a warrior spirit. I love legs! I hate seeing them covered up. (I especially hated the ridiculous blue diving outfit Lynda Carter wore every time she took a dip in the second and third seasons of Wonder Woman...she was already wearing a bathing suit...) Now, if we talk the unaired, unsold Wonder Woman pilot that starred Adrienne Palicki in the titilating titular role....I would've followed that show. I loved that take on Wonder Woman. Yeah, she started out in pants, but in the final fight of that pilot, she was in her more traditional outfit....so I would've followed that show had it actually made it to production.
I also didn't care for how they covered Lara Croft up in the new Tomb Raider game. (And Angelina "I'm Too Artsy Fartsy to Wear Short Shorts" Jolie did nothing for me as Lara Croft in the two movies. The only time I saw her as Lara was in the first few minutes of the first movie..after that, I lost interest.) For me, Lara Croft is short shorts, hot body, English accent, guns, intellect, and ferocity.
But again, I don't lose my shit over these things. I bought the new Tomb Raider game, and despite what they did with Lara, it was still an enjoyable game, and I look forward to its follow up.
If I sound sexist...well, I prefer to think of myself as "old school male" when it comes to hotties, be they real or fictional.
Well, I'm just old. But not so old I didn't appreciate the sexuality of the moment. I've had no problem with the Uhura and Gaila scenes in 09, and I don't have a problem with the Alice Eve moment. At most I had a quick SMH moment with the "don't look at me (but look at me!)" play out of the scene.
So... let's unpack this. You seriously believe that people who dislike the underwear scene "probably" also "lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants"?
I think it's a tad prudish myself, but can you tell us what you're basing that on?
Ha ha ha! That's precisely what I got out of the scene! I mean, why would Carol have invited Kirk onto the shuttle in the first place? Sure, partially to discuss an upcoming mission and her real reasons to be aboard the Enterprise, but, it was pretty evident that there was a spark even when she and Kirk first met. But, I think she was getting flirty. She figured "men are still gonna be men", and banked on Kirk being curious as to "why did she have me turn around?".
Alan Dean Foster did a really good job with explaining Kirk's impulse, stating that Kirk realized that conversations were more effective when conducted face to face...and that til then, he'd decided that StarFleet undergarments were never quite so fetching.
So yeah, I totally get the "don't look at me....but look at me" impression.
Assuming Hartzilla is completely serious may not always be the best place to start.
If anything, I could easily see a Venn diagram showing little or no intersection between one group objecting to the Carol Marcus underwear scene and another objecting to the notion of Wonder Woman wearing pants. Hmm, perhaps that's why bonus points: because such coincidence would be relatively unlikely?
Sorry about that I was mostly going by how comic book fans had a melt down about Goyer's Shehulk comments being insulting to comic fans despite all the stuff they post that pretty much agrees with him and being cynical enough to think some of the people complaining about Into Darkness's underwear scene were probably overlapping with that group.
To be fair, with the Gaila moments we also got Kirk in his undies, which for some of us, is just as much a treat.
I loved Kirk in his undies.
Spoiler: ENORMOUS PICS OF KIRK IN HIS UNDIES
Too bad the Cumberbatch shower scene got cut. I've got no problem with equal opportunity when it comes to showing skin.
I find the 2009 movie to be more "fun"...more of a crowd pleaser, but overall STID is a better movie.
The speech at the end of the movie is one of the best things about the movie, shows character growth and leads into an exciting anticipation of a 5 year mission.
Yes, there was more adventure and exploration in the first 10 min of STID than just about any whole ST movie previous to JJ.
Not the Enterprise in the ocean, but when it comes OUT..is one of the best spectacles I've seen in a movie of any kind.
I also like the Spock-Khan chase, right from the crash of Vengeance..never has a Star Trek world looked so real and solid.
I agree ID did have some things to say about the world (which is one of the things I liked about it, even though it could have done it better) - but 09 really didn't. 'Kirk and crew getting back together' isn't 'having something to say about the world'. It also didn't really do much at all to resurrect the 'message' of TOS. It was a reasonable reboot of an action centered tos ep which had no real purpose other than the action.
I found Spock's more emotionally "free" characterization in '09 a Trek-like analogy of "coming out", so that satisfied the "message" aspect of Trek for me. Not every episode or movie had a "serious message" to convey (nor should they need to).
Separate names with a comma.