Star Trek Into Darkness & The Bechdel Test

[Clancy_s]

I have another take on the CM undies scenen

the first time I didn't understand why she was asking Kirk to turn around and looking at someone you're talking to is a natural thing to do, I was wanting Kirk to turn back because I wanted to see what she was up to - I was surprised to find she'd stripped off and I thought Kirk was also surprised and after a moments gobsmacked bogglement turned back at her order.

They were in a shuttle with the door open, at least a semi-public space, she wasn't carrying a change of clothing or did I see one in the shuttle and those overalls are meant to go over the regular uniform (yes she was in a dress, but it's short enough to fit under the coverall).

If for some reason I needed to change in a hurry in the middle of a discussion with someone I'd at least say "I need to get changed, please turn around". I think Alice Eve was also of that opinion - she made a comment about her character stripping off in a corridor during a cast and director interview in London. JJ squirmed a bit...

I thought it was there for the titillation alone, to me it's implausible and doesn't say anything convincing about either of the characters to me, which is why it bothers me.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Frankly if JJ just cut out the Marcus underwear scene I don't think anyone would have any 'real' complaints about the gender equality of the movie.

The thing is, if it had been Marcus looking at Kirk naked, women everywhere would have been going 'Yeah! You go, girl, he is sexy!' and there would be no objections to it at all, I'll bet. I think that this was done to show that he and Marcus would be more than friendly, and eventually they would be lovers. I chalk this up to North American prudishness more than anything else (although I wish that they had kept the Khan/Harrison shower scene as well, just for balance.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Prudishness? What do you mean?

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip> I chalk this up to North American prudishness more than anything else (although I wish that they had kept the Khan/Harrison shower scene as well, just for balance.

Prudishness? What do you mean?

(While we're at it, since a fair portion of the objection to that scene clearly comes from locations in other parts of the world: ) North American? What do you mean?

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Seeing how you conveniently edited out the one portion of my post (in bold, so it would be easy to notice) that also discredits your argument--can't see how he's wrong here.

Here's the part you oh so conveniently cut from the rest of the post: As it was, that scene acted as a further blow AGAINST Kirk's womanizing attitude. He's made to feel uncomfortable and that discomfort demonstrates A) his attitude is not all that acceptable and B) Marcus is confident enough to order him to "Turn around" rather than meekly stand there to be ogled at length. The scene does NOT suggest Kirk's behaviour deserves a frat boy "high five" or "fist bump". If it did, then I'd be the first to complain. (triple highlight now--in case you simply missed it last time)

You assume because you didn’t get a direct response to this portion of your post that you successfully discredited my post. No. Same goes for the other quote you are talking about.

Since you seem to really want a response to your triple highlight double bolded explanation, I will kindly give you one. I didn’t before because there’s an entire thread that has discussed this particular scene ad nauseam, and I gave what thoughts I have, that haven’t changed, there. Forgive me if I didn’t feel like doing a bunch of retreading, but please don’t mistake silence for not having a response.

To your quote above, A) that scene was not played out as a further blow against Kirk’s womanizing attitude. Not at all. I don’t know how that could be when he didn’t even know she was undressing in the first place when he turned around to see what she was doing. As he looked, she seemingly struck a pose, with her body on display, then she told him to turn around and he did, but only after he got a good look (as well as the camera).

Yes, B) she told him to turn around, but she also waited a beat (to my recollection) as he got a good look and, again, she could have been posing for a magazine shoot the way her body was positioned while that beat passed. So, I think he got to “ogle” her well enough, and so did the camera.

I don’t know who said that the scene deserved a frat boy “high five” or “fist bump,” but I do know that it served its purpose in giving mostly male audience members something nice to “ogle,” and it was advertised non-stop. So, it did what it was supposed to do in my view.

Here’s some of what I said on the other thread:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=213937&page=2

If it was a topless hunk scene would anyone be complaining?

Yeah, but that's the thing. In this movie we didn't get that balance. Last movie, it was Uhura and Kirk (and Gaila) that were in their undies. This movie only showcases Eve's character, and she's posed in such a way that makes it look like she hoped Kirk would turn around and take a picture. Anyway, I guess a shot of a lean, topless, Spock was too much to hope for, lol.

…

-About Kirk’s Topless Scene-

Oh, I know what scene you're talking about and my response is not really. It's in the dark, extraordinarily blink-and-you-miss-it brief, and you don't see his entire body on "display" like you see Eve's well-lit and ready-for-the-camera bod. So, for me it doesn't count. In ST09, Uhura and Kirk's body exposure was about the same and roughly done in the same way.
…

Well, I don't know about complaining, I didn't really care much for the film so it's not like I'll be watching it again, but it did seem gratuitous.

Thor and ST09 didn't seem that gratuitous, and I think I already explained my reasoning for ST09. No one also complained about Zoe Saldana's partial nudity in that film for the same reasons, I think.

So, that was page 2, and things went from there.

Even JJ Abrams, who shot and edited the scene, said that he could understand why there are people who think it was gratuitous and that maybe he didn’t edit it quite right. He also said that the scene was meant to display Kirk as a womanizer in that scene, not as a “blow against” it, as you say, and that was his artistic choice. Disagree if you will, but it’s from the horse’s mouth.

Here's the clip from Conan:

http://teamcoco.com/video/conan-highlight-showering-cumberbatch

Anybody notice how much they brightened up that picture of Kirk? Lol, it was not that bright in the film. Not at all. Anyway, on to the quotes:

The intent was, it’s Kirk. He was always this sort of womanizing character. The idea was to have a beat like that in the midst of all this action and adventure. […]

I don’t think I quite edited the scene in the right way, but to me it was this sort of balance. There’s a scene earlier where he’s not dressed either. So it felt like it was this sort of — it was a trade-off. […]

Some people did feel like it was exploiting her. And while she is lovely, I can also see their point of view.

Then he mentions that they cut the topless Cumberbatch scene that might have provided a better balance of male/female nudity in the film. The clip goes on to show the scene.

As I’ve already said before, I’ll let you have the last word on what you said in the rest of your response post to me because I feel like we’re getting to where we are repeating stuff (or at least I am), and I don’t to argue for the sake of arguing. So, I’ll leave the rest of what you said be unless you really want a response to that too.

(As an FYI, excerpted quotes taken from here: http://www.treknews.net/2013/05/22/jj-abrams-deleted-scene-benedict-cumberbatch-shower/)

 

[Nerys Myk]

It wasn't Gene, it was advertisers and the studio. Look at how male and white The Cage was.

I'd love to hear you elaborate on how Gene didn't really care about diversity. That would be some very convoluted revisionist history for sure.

I find it hard to believe that the advertisers in the 60s liked the idea of a rainbow cast, interracial kisses, etc... It may make sense today, but not back in the bigoted 60s.

Hard to believe because it doesn't fit your narrative. But if you look at shows being produced at the time, you'll see a few black faces: Barney in Mission:Impossible, Kinchloe in Hogan's Heroes and of course Alexander Scott in I Spy. Shows that predate or are concurrent with the debut of Star Trek.

Also read Solow and Justman's book Inside Star Trek. Pay close attention to the memo from NBC Vice President Mort Werner reproduced on pages 76 and 77.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Prudishness? What do you mean?

<snip> I chalk this up to North American prudishness more than anything else (although I wish that they had kept the Khan/Harrison shower scene as well, just for balance.

Prudishness? What do you mean?

(While we're at it, since a fair portion of the objection to that scene clearly comes from locations in other parts of the world: ) North American? What do you mean?

I'm saying what I said due to the fact that most of the objections came from North American bloggers (at least the ones I'm familiar with.) Even though now I know that there are others who object as well from abroad, I still think that this is just prudishness on most people's parts.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Oh you originally said:

The thing is, if it had been Marcus looking at Kirk naked, women everywhere would have been going 'Yeah! You go, girl, he is sexy!' and there would be no objections to it at all, I'll bet. I think that this was done to show that he and Marcus would be more than friendly, and eventually they would be lovers. I chalk this up to North American prudishness more than anything else (although I wish that they had kept the Khan/Harrison shower scene as well, just for balance.

So I thought you were connecting your assessment of prudishness to your saying that if it had been Kirk naked everyone would be cool about it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

The full frontal of Carol in her undies was there purely to titillate.

It was obviously gratuitous but so are many other scenes in other shows and movies that are equally so.

So, everything that was said about multiple levels to the scene was obviously wasted on you then.

Sort of. I have no particular interest in seeing Alice Eve in her undies. The other levels I got just fine.

Well, no, because saying the scene was "purely" for titillation and was "gratuitous" means that you think there were no other levels of meaning to the scene. You can't have one or the other. If there are other levels to it, then it's not gratuitous and it's not purely for titillation.

But I digress - I apologise if I wasn't clear - they didn't have to show her body fully on screen to achieve the same effect. The scene with Marion in Raiders of the Lost Ark is constructed similarly, but Karen Allen didn't flash her boobs because it wasn't actually needed to make the scene work. Subtlelty would have worked, it just would not have titillated as much.

You keep saying things like "full frontal," "show her body fully," and "flash her boobs." Eve did none of those things in STiD. Her underwear was no more risqué than a fairly mundane bikini on the beach.

The thing is, if it had been Marcus looking at Kirk naked, women everywhere would have been going 'Yeah! You go, girl, he is sexy!' and there would be no objections to it at all, I'll bet.

Look, I think people are making way more of this scene than it deserves, but you do understand that there's a difference between a woman ogling a man and a man ogling a woman, right? Not just in terms of physical differences, but in terms of the history behind depictions of women onscreen vs. men, and in how a woman would be in a more vulnerable position in that case than a man would.

 

[Pauln6]

So, everything that was said about multiple levels to the scene was obviously wasted on you then.

Sort of. I have no particular interest in seeing Alice Eve in her undies. The other levels I got just fine.

Well, no, because saying the scene was "purely" for titillation and was "gratuitous" means that you think there were no other levels of meaning to the scene. You can't have one or the other. If there are other levels to it, then it's not gratuitous and it's not purely for titillation.

But I digress - I apologise if I wasn't clear - they didn't have to show her body fully on screen to achieve the same effect. The scene with Marion in Raiders of the Lost Ark is constructed similarly, but Karen Allen didn't flash her boobs because it wasn't actually needed to make the scene work. Subtlelty would have worked, it just would not have titillated as much.

You keep saying things like "full frontal," "show her body fully," and "flash her boobs." Eve did none of those things in STiD. Her underwear was no more risqué than a fairly mundane bikini on the beach.

Yes, sorry if you find my loose use of language to be confusing my meaning. The entire SCENE is not gratuitous - it contains some exposition and is intended to cast the first pebble into a potential relationship pool. The full frontal underwear SHOT was "purely" for titillation and was "gratuitous". It was full frontal and was a full body shot but it wasn't a full frontal nude shot. I don't think anybody discussing the scene thinks that it was nude...

The same exposition and frisson could have been shown with the characters walking through a corridor or while Marcus was preparing equipment other than her own.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It was full frontal and was a full body shot but it wasn't a full frontal nude shot. I don't think anybody discussing the scene thinks that it was nude...

I don't think they (or you) do either. But I do think you and others have worked yourself into quite a fervor over this scene, and it's reflected in the exaggerated language you use to describe it.

 

[CrazyHorse89]

Prudishness? What do you mean?

Prudishness? What do you mean?

(While we're at it, since a fair portion of the objection to that scene clearly comes from locations in other parts of the world: ) North American? What do you mean?

I'm saying what I said due to the fact that most of the objections came from North American bloggers (at least the ones I'm familiar with.) Even though now I know that there are others who object as well from abroad, I still think that this is just prudishness on most people's parts.

The scene caused a mild controversy pretty much everywhere. And most people didn't object to the exposure of flesh in and of itself. Prudishness has nothing to do with most people's objections.

 

[Commishsleer]

The Marcus underwear scene was actually an insult to men's intelligence. It's inclusion indicates that men won't like movies unless they have a bit of naked women in it.

JJ obviously respects the intelligence of women more as he felt he didn't need to include the Cumberbatch shower scene to attract the ladies

I have the solution to the problem though.
Men in one ship. Women in another.
Then there'll be no yucky kissing or holding hands or carrying on in either ship. A lot more work will be done. And the Federation will be a lot better off

 

[Therin of Andor]

For starters, I thinks it's silly that Keenser is an officer, let alone the assistant chief purely because of he is portrayed and treated in the movies and comics. I suppose one could argue that he's the same as Morn, who allegedly never shut up off-screen...

So mute aliens should be banned from being in Starfleet?

In any case, we do hear Keenser speaking an alien language when Kirk arrives at the complex, and Keenser does say "Me", in English, to Scotty in the 2009 film.

The comics don't really count for movie audiences because they're only bought by about 1% of the audience.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As for the Eve scene, there is clearly some intentional titillation. But that's not ALL there is to it. If it were, Kirk would not be made to feel uncomfortable about having looked at her.

Even more importantly, apart from his initial "Well lookit you!" reaction in the shuttlecraft, Kirk never does get around to hitting on her even when he DOES see her in her underwear. She seems entirely disinclined to put up with his bullshit, which is probably why Carol Marcus and James T. Kirk might just work out in the Abramsverse.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The Marcus underwear scene was actually an insult to men's intelligence. It's inclusion indicates that men won't like movies unless they have a bit of naked women in it.

No, just that men like movies BETTER when they have naked women in them.

OTOH, if Carol Marcus had come aboard the Enterprise BEFORE the mission to Nibiru, it might not even be an issue. Just replace the underwear with a bikini and Kirk wouldn't even have to turn around.

JJ obviously respects the intelligence of women more as he felt he didn't need to include the Cumberbatch shower scene to attract the ladies

Or the men, for that matter.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The Marcus underwear scene was actually an insult to men's intelligence. It's inclusion indicates that men won't like movies unless they have a bit of naked women in it.

Again with the hyperbole. She wasn't naked.

And, nonsense.

Whether I like movie X with scene Y cut itself has no direct bearing on whether I'd also like movie X with scene Y uncut, and vice versa. Exercising my intellect is not the sole reason I go to see movies.

Nice try, though, in attempting to speak for all men, and in suggesting that men who like the movie as-is with the scene uncut aren't intelligent.

 

[mos6507]

I have the solution to the problem though.
Men in one ship. Women in another.
Then there'll be no yucky kissing or holding hands or carrying on in either ship. A lot more work will be done. And the Federation will be a lot better off

Which is the exact premise of my Fem Trekz show, which is to some degree a reaction against the unprofessional animal-house atmosphere established in JJ Trek.

 

[BillJ]

...which is to some degree a reaction against the unprofessional animal-house atmosphere established in JJ Trek.

This is, without a doubt, the dumbest thing I've ever read on these boards. That is really saying something.

 

[Pauln6]

It was full frontal and was a full body shot but it wasn't a full frontal nude shot. I don't think anybody discussing the scene thinks that it was nude...

I don't think they (or you) do either. But I do think you and others have worked yourself into quite a fervor over this scene, and it's reflected in the exaggerated language you use to describe it.

I don't know how many times I can say I wasn't that bothered by it. Yes it was gratuitous, yes it was blatant titillation but meh. I do understand why some women and some men roll their eyes at it though.

My issue is over the wider deployment of women in the franchise as a whole.

Even Game of Thrones, which is set in an incredibly sexist, quasi-medieval setting has a far better ratio of men to women than Trek. Most of them are nominally defined by their relationship to a male character and a good number of them may be whores (albeit that some of them are very interesting and well rounded whores, in more ways than one) but the whores blend in with a diverse range of other female characters.

There is an astonishing amount of gratuitous nudity of both sexes in that show (a lot more women than men admittedly) largely for the purposes of titillation but sometimes to underscore just how vulnerable these women are in a patriarchal society. I still think that, given the limits of its setting, GoT has a much better approach to women than Trek currently does.