• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Alice Eve's controversial underwear shot (STID)

on Alice Eve's underwear shot, now that the controversy has died down

  • Yay!

    Votes: 12 30.0%
  • Nay!

    Votes: 11 27.5%
  • I don't care

    Votes: 17 42.5%

  • Total voters
    40
Status
Not open for further replies.

Shat Happens

Fleet Captain
Fleet Captain
It's been 6+ years. Now that everybody has had the chance to cool off, what do you really think about it?
 
I don't think it was as bad as a lot of people made out. It was no worse than the type of thing that we've seen in multiple Bond movies down the years, I think it jarred more because people didn't expect to see it in a Trek movie rather than the strength of the content itself. Ultimately, it didn't really bother me all that much, but I can understand some people having a problem with it.

It's only been just over three years too.
 
The only thing that bothered me about it was it was so random. The Uhuru underwear scene (and Kirk's) made sense within the context of the storyline. He's in her room, she doesn't know he's there, she changes clothes. This shot was just so...random. Maybe if it had a better context it wouldn't become such a 'thing.'
 
Last edited:
The only thing that bothered me about it was it was so random. The Uhuru underwear scene (and Kirk's) made sense within the context of the storyline. He's in her room, she doesn't know he's there, she changes clothes. This shot was just so...random. Maybe if it had a better context there wouldn't become such a 'thing.'

Also the fact she seemed to leave her body in display almost during the scene. If she was that bothered she would have covered up!
 
I have to admit that I didn't particularly like the scene. I found it ridiculous and gratuitous -- but no more so than many other things in that movie and the one before. So in the end I voted that I don't care.
 
The way women are treated as consumable objects and eye candy in ST09 and STID is probably my least favorite thing about those movies. There's hardly a single major female character who we don't see in their underwear (I honestly don't remember one). It's unnecessarily trying to convince the audience that Star Trek is cool by ramping up its sexiness, but they did it in a vapid, sexist way. It just makes me roll my eyes. Marcus is a brilliant science officer and we do get to see some of that -- but not before we see her boobs. Star Trek ought to know better.

EDIT: And one of the many, many things I loved about Beyond is how it didn't fall into that treating women as eye candy trap.
 
I've seen racier Kmart ads.
My issue isn't with whether or not it's explicit. My problem is the nature of that treatment of women -- as eye candy or things for the men (boys?) in the audience to gawk at. I'm a big defender of the Kelvin Timeline, but I could definitely do without that backwards approach to female characters. In fact, we did do without it in Beyond.
 
The way women are treated as consumable objects and eye candy in ST09 and STID is probably my least favorite thing about those movies. There's hardly a single major female character who we don't see in their underwear (I honestly don't remember one). It's unnecessarily trying to convince the audience that Star Trek is cool by ramping up its sexiness, but they did it in a vapid, sexist way. It just makes me roll my eyes. Marcus is a brilliant science officer and we do get to see some of that -- but not before we see her boobs. Star Trek ought to know better.

EDIT: And one of the many, many things I loved about Beyond is how it didn't fall into that treating women as eye candy trap.

I agree with you about Beyond. My husband joked that it 'wasn't real Star Trek. Kirk didn't flirt with the alien woman!'
 
on Alice Eve's underwear shot, now that the controversy has died down
[let's see if it can be stirred up again]
Right?

I'll give this a day. If, by the end of that time, it's defied the odds overwhelmingly stacked against it and somehow become a productive topic of discussion, then perhaps it can continue.
 
My issue isn't with whether or not it's explicit. My problem is the nature of that treatment of women -- as eye candy or things for the men (boys?) in the audience to gawk at. I'm a big defender of the Kelvin Timeline, but I could definitely do without that backwards approach to female characters. In fact, we did do without it in Beyond.

I don't know? She was changing into a flight suit, which made more sense than going to her quarters or beaming down in a mini-dress. Is it a choice I would've made or approved had I been in charge of the movie? I don't know?
 
I guess the plot didn't even allow for him tapping off with her. It was just a nod to say 'yeah folks I'm still a womaniser'

But then again there was the implied threesome scene, so it wasn't that necessary I suppose.
 
I guess the plot didn't even allow for him tapping off with her. It was just a nod to say 'yeah folks I'm still a womaniser'

But then again there was the implied threesome scene, so it wasn't that necessary I suppose.
I don't think any of that "hey, remember Kirk being a ladies man?" stuff is necessary. Quite frankly it's not even all that accurate to TOS -- it's just how people remember TOS. Pretty much every woman that Kirk had a relationship with in TOS, no matter how brief, was someone he genuinely cared about. I mean, he didn't even fool around with any "green women" as the old joke goes. There was an Orion dancer in "Wolf in the Fold" who he just observed, and then Marta in "Whom Gods Destroy" that Kirk didn't show any interest in. I really don't think Kirk deserves that reputation. Now, Riker on the other hand...
 
The underwear shot? Gratuitous but forgettable. Don't care.

Alice Eve's true crime was her atrocious acting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top