Lindelof On Eve Scene (minor spoilers, hysteria, hyperbole)

[BillJ]

I think it's important to see why Marcus is valued. Is it because she is able to deactivate the torpedo, or is it because she looks nice? I think if you asked Jim Kirk that question, he would only come to appreciate her as a member of the crew after he valued how she looked. So she gets in the door, so to speak, because of her looks, not her credentials, and that is a sad commentary on the 23rd century.

She got in the door because she falsified orders.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I think I'd be far more concerned about the lack of women captains (one) and women first officers (zero) in the emergency meeting than two seconds of someone in their underwear.

I had heard this was the case but when I watched the movie I saw a good representation of races a genders. I think I saw at least 3-4 women in the meeting.

I only saw one, but really wasn't counting heads when watching the movie. I might go tomorrow and I'll definitely pay more attention to the ratio in the scene.

click

 

[marksound]

I think it's important to see why Marcus is valued. Is it because she is able to deactivate the torpedo, or is it because she looks nice? I think if you asked Jim Kirk that question, he would only come to appreciate her as a member of the crew after he valued how she looked. So she gets in the door, so to speak, because of her looks, not her credentials, and that is a sad commentary on the 23rd century.

In and of itself, attraction is not a bad thing. When girls get the message that this is the only thing that gives them worth, then I think the culture should examine itself. Now you can dispute that all you want, that girls get this message from television and movies. I understand it is not the only influence. But where does that peer pressure come from? What sets the trend for clothing? My guess is advertisements and wanting to look like a particular star. What sets the attitude of girls before they ever enter into middle school? This is trying to get to the root of that. But there is overwhelming scientific evidence, some presented in this thread, that girls respond differently than boys to these perfect images of their physique. A boy's worth is not tied to his physical appearance. The needs of girls are not the same as boys. They are not the same, I suggest not equating the two.

As I said, this is not the only place we need to do work. But Star Trek being a more progressive, inclusive universe, I don't expect a 2013 version of that universe to reflect Gene Roddenberry's sexism. This is supposed to be a hopeful future.

Context matters. And when Kirk is in bed with two women, it shows him as a womanizer. We are not shown why he is in bed with them, except that he flirts with every pretty face that walks by (the scene with Spock where they talk about the 5-year mission, the scene with Bones talking about the Kobiashi Maru). I don't think that is more than a pop culture representation of James Kirk. William Shatner's portrayal, and in the scripts themselves, was to learn about the people he was on the Enterprise with. He didn't have cheap hook-ups every time he went out into space. He listened to them. He fought with them. So even if this is keeping in the tradition of Kirk, this frat boy is not the James Kirk I remember.

Complaining is not limiting anyone's freedom. It is a discourse, loud and messy as this one has been, about what to do with this scene. It's about education of what is actually being discovered in science, and using that information. Do I think there needs to be new decency standards? In terms of financial penalties for showing a model that is sickly underweight, yes. This movie would not qualify. Do I think we need to ban Barbies? No, I think we need to create a public swell to make sure that the dolls change their shape. I am not asking for women to dress from head-to-toe and have fat dolls to play with. But I think we are putting them in a situation where media images, in combination with other factors, are causing pain.

Now as a man, I am insulted by these images. I am insulted that I am seen as some drooling frat boy that just wants to see naked women and get drunk all the time. My experience with this movie was that I laughed and muttered "completely useless scene." I wanted to walk out of the theater, and stopped myself, because I knew I would have to pay again to see the rest of it. When we see men's magazines, women are plastered all over them. It's as if I never have a thought that doesn't include naked women. I never want to know how about health or politics or comedy. Someone says "We cater to men," it automatically means beer, pizza, tv, sports, and women. It means I can't watch other popular science fiction without being offended. It means that I cannot watch a comedy about men without seeing those images (Hangover III) or having a stupid Dad that just goes along with whatever the wife says because she bitches a lot and he can't take her incessant whining. If that appeals to you, fine. It doesn't to me. And I avoid things that say "we cater to men" for that purpose. This movie caters to men.

That makes more sense than anything else you've posted in this thread. You don't have to cite psychological studies to support your personal preferences. They're personal. And preferences.

I still think it's much ado about nothing, but that's my personal opinion.

 

[BillJ]

...

But how many women Admirals were there? Huh? Huh? Star Trek Into Darkness hates women!!!

 

[SalvorHardin]

...

But how many women Admirals were there? Huh? Huh? Star Trek Into Darkness hates women!!!

The women Admirals were out with the rest of the fleet doing hard, important work.
Only the lazy, useless men Admirals were left back on Earth doing the paperwork.

 

[ROBE]

Who says in the future there will be equal numbers between the sexes of admirals?
Factors like women taking career breaks to have children or not serving as long as men in Starfleet is likely to effect promotion.

 

[indranee]

But considering the path they chose for this movie, I think they should be mildly ashamed of themselves. Dr. Marcus, the strong presence from Wrath of Khan, has been reduced to a visual gag regarding her sexy body, and Uhura has been reduced to being the whiny, inconvenient girlfriend of one of the strong, manly heroes.

Marcus was also the only one qualified on the Enterprise to disarm a "4,000 pound stick of dynamite", as McCoy put it and was a weapons specialist. Two seconds of underwear is not a visual gag reel.

But the question is: why did we NEED to see her in her underwear in that scene? I'd rather they have a sex scene where both she and Kirk are nude (well, this is Trek, so semi-nude) than see THAT. There was no reason for it to be there. That's why I agree that JJ etc should be ashamed of themselves. They want to have us women flock to their movie instead of to TGG? Well, not only do they have Alice Eve exposing herself needlessly, they don't even give us Cumberbatch's shirtless scene!

If you're going to objectify your characters, I say do it equally.

 

[sj4iy]

From the start of this, with some complaints of a two second (maybe not even) part of the movie, I think all of this is serious overreaction, including Lindelof making an issue of it.

If some folks are getting up in arms about this, I shudder, SHUDDER, I tell you, to think of what those people would think of scenes in other movies which would probably be much more inappropriate for both the moment in the movie and how it depicts a woman.

I have yet to hear one complaint about the twin cat women in their underwear in bed yet.

I guess I don't get why I, as a woman, should care? It's entertainment, and if the scene didn't work for you so be it. But I don't think it's such a big deal that people have to stand up for women's rights. I'm more disgusted that our society will rate a movie with excessive violence, murder and terrorism PG-13, but god forbid there be anything having to do with naked people, because that get an automatic R or worse. What, people can't have sex in the future?

My god, I watch Game of Thrones every week with my husband, and if you want to see men REALLY treating women like objects, just watch ONE episode of that show. I don't see as many people up-in-arms about that.

That's because Game of Thrones is very clearly criticizing that behaviour (this strongly and furiously feminist outlook is even more clear in the books), while Star Trek is blatantly accepting and propogating it. In fact, George R. R. Martin has done more for creating strong, fully-developed female characters in the last decade than most of science fiction has done in the last 5 decades. I'm glad you brought Game of Thrones up, as a perfect example of how to portray nudity, sexuality, gender roles, and strong female characters in a way that is brave, realistic, insightful, and fair. It serves as a wonderful contrast to Star Trek.

Sorry, I'm not seeing this "brave women" thing...I see women who are mistreated and used by men for their own whims. He is accurately depicting the horror of the time, yes- but only a few of the main female characters "rise up"...the minor characters get their babies ripped out of their hands and murdered, raped with foreign objects or by their father, and then killed in just about every way possible. And not everyone agrees with your analysis - many people have accused the tv show of showing nudity and sex just for the hell of it, and it's true. Why show the numerous sex scenes with prostitutes? Why have almost every female (over the age of 18 in real life) strip down naked at some point? I watch it and I get over it. Just like I watched Star Trek and I got over it.

 

[M'Sharak]

If you're going to objectify your characters, I say do it equally.

Next film: full-frontal Keenser.

 

[sj4iy]

But the question is: why did we NEED to see her in her underwear in that scene? I'd rather they have a sex scene where both she and Kirk are nude (well, this is Trek, so semi-nude) than see THAT. There was no reason for it to be there. That's why I agree that JJ etc should be ashamed of themselves. They want to have us women flock to their movie instead of to TGG? Well, not only do they have Alice Eve exposing herself needlessly, they don't even give us Cumberbatch's shirtless scene!

If you're going to objectify your characters, I say do it equally.

So it's okay if a woman is naked (or in her underwear) as long as a man is having sex with her? Got it.

 

[indranee]

Yes, because it's sex. I'm not a prude. As long as BOTH are naked, it's fine. And if it's equal opportunity. As in the decon-gel scene in ENT

 

[indranee]

If you're going to objectify your characters, I say do it equally.

Next film: full-frontal Keenser.

Ew. No. Please.

 

[BillJ]

If you're going to objectify your characters, I say do it equally.

Next film: full-frontal Keenser.

Ew. No. Please.

Yup.

Gotta make sure every one is demeaned. I can't wait to see the underside of a Horta!

 

[indranee]

That's not EO. That's gross.

I'm waiting for the naked tribble.

*shudder*

 

[sj4iy]

Yes, because it's sex. I'm not a prude. As long as BOTH are naked, it's fine. And if it's equal opportunity. As in the decon-gel scene in ENT

I'm not a prude, either, which is why I think this whole argument is ridiculous. I thought the scene was fine, I thought Kirk was really attracted to her, and she to him. Everyone else (except every person I know who has seen the film IRL) is in an uproar over something the writer said instead of what really happened in that scene. It's dumb.

 

[indranee]

For me, the problem lies in the fact that 1) they only showed a second or two of AE naked and Kirk gazing blankly at her, and 2) Cumberbatch actually complained about the fact that they made him build up to the naked chest scene and then cut it.

I call that discrimination and blatant pandering to the male demographics. Although, I'm sure there are many men who wouldn't mind staring blankly at Cumberbatch's naked chest.

 

[Amaris]

For me, the problem lies in the fact that 1) they only showed a second or two of AE naked and Kirk gazing blankly at her, and 2) Cumberbatch actually complained about the fact that they made him build up to the naked chest scene and then cut it.

I call that discrimination and blatant pandering to the male demographics. Although, I'm sure there are many men who wouldn't mind staring blankly at Cumberbatch's naked chest.

*raises hand*

 

[Belz...]

I think it's important to see why Marcus is valued. Is it because she is able to deactivate the torpedo, or is it because she looks nice?

The former. The latter is never discussed or implied.

I understand it is not the only influence. But where does that peer pressure come from? What sets the trend for clothing?

Real-life people.

You're basically blaming fiction for reality. I do the reverse.

Complaining is not limiting anyone's freedom.

Asking them to stop doing what they do because you fear it will change your kid is.

Do I think we need to ban Barbies? No, I think we need to create a public swell to make sure that the dolls change their shape. I am not asking for women to dress from head-to-toe and have fat dolls to play with. But I think we are putting them in a situation where media images, in combination with other factors, are causing pain.

So basically you are not proposing any solution. What's the point of complaining, then ?

I am insulted that I am seen as some drooling frat boy that just wants to see naked women and get drunk all the time.

You're the one adding this meaning to the movie. It doesn't come with it. This is basically the basis of your entire argument: your interpretation.

My experience with this movie was that I laughed and muttered "completely useless scene."

I agree.

I wanted to walk out of the theater

Talk about overreaction. Do you always walk out of movies you paid for when you see a scene that's not entirely relevant ?

 

[Belz...]

Who says in the future there will be equal numbers between the sexes of admirals?
Factors like women taking career breaks to have children or not serving as long as men in Starfleet is likely to effect promotion.

Also: women and men are not necessarily equally interested in all fields and careers.

But the question is: why did we NEED to see her in her underwear in that scene?

"Need" ?

 

[sj4iy]

For me, the problem lies in the fact that 1) they only showed a second or two of AE naked and Kirk gazing blankly at her, and 2) Cumberbatch actually complained about the fact that they made him build up to the naked chest scene and then cut it.

I call that discrimination and blatant pandering to the male demographics. Although, I'm sure there are many men who wouldn't mind staring blankly at Cumberbatch's naked chest.

It better be in the deleted scenes, dammit.