Orci talks about Star Trek 3

[Nerys Myk]

I don't think the stewards of the Trek franchise have any interest in progressive attitudes about gender/sex.

So get ready to be disappointed.

You could've just as easily used a snap of the couple times we've seen Pine in his underwear. I don't honestly see how someone in their underwear is a conviction of someone's attitudes towards sex?

I think it says more about the people complaining than anything else.

The difference is that the camera never lingers on Kirk's pine tree.

And how long is the scene with Carol? Was it even long enough to count as a "linger"?

 

[SPCTRE]

I don't think the stewards of the Trek franchise have any interest in progressive attitudes about gender/sex.

So get ready to be disappointed.

You could've just as easily used a snap of the couple times we've seen Pine in his underwear. I don't honestly see how someone in their underwear is a conviction of someone's attitudes towards sex?

I think it says more about the people complaining than anything else.

The difference is that the camera never lingers on Kirk's pine tree.

 

[BillJ]

Don't pretend fans never had complaints of the way Trek handled this kind of stuff in the past. If Trek wants to sex things up, they could do a lot better than reach lows of BAYWATCH titillation. Remember the complaints of ENTERPRISE and the crew oiling up each other with the cameras lingering on their bodies? It was tacky then, still is today.

Please. I found those complaints just as silly as the Carol Marcus complaints. What exactly are we expecting? These are the voyages of pretty people in space. This is the franchise that gave us the Holodeck and Troi as the Goddess of Love, the planet that people make love at the drop of a hat (any hat) and the sex resort planet (Risa).

A better example of Trek playing with sex appeal is when Saavik is wearing a robe with her hair down in the turbo-lift. She didn't need to flash her boobs or anything.

Yeah. If your a fifty-year old guy with a heart condition.

The difference is that the camera never lingers on Kirk's pine tree.

And how long is the scene with Carol? Was it even long enough to count as a "linger"?

Exactly. The fake outrage caused by those two seconds is laughable. On the long list of atrocities against women that Trek has committed, this one is waaayyyyyyy down the list.

 

[ChristopherPike]

They did film a topless Benedict Cumberbatch taking a shower, but I suppose that would've been intercut with flashbacks of his former life as Ricardo Montalban. And since he wouldn't have been wearing his shirt either...

Alice Eve was practically decent compared to all that homo-eroticism they probably cut.

 

[borgboy]

I did find the Carol underwear scene not just exploitive but creepy. I get the vibe that the actress was uncomfortable doing the scene. I can't prove it or anything, that's just how it feels to me. The mood and chemistry of the whole thing was all just wrong. If they had gotten a playful mood, or some real chemistry with the actors, it might have worked as sexy, but they hit all the wrong notes. It's not just about the gratuitous panty shot, it was all in the execution. Done in a different way the same amount or more of flesh could've been exposed and I wouldn't have found it objectionable.
I didn't think there was any chemistry with Carol and Kirk. While I'd like to see Uhura get better development outside of being a girlfriend, I do think there is chemistry with Spock and Uhura - even if there is more chemistry with Kirk and Spock. I am interested in seeing Spock and Uhura's relationship develop, I just wish it wasn't so long between movies!
I agree the lube rub downs on Enterprise was ridiculously sleazy.
The shower scene with Khan was sexy, but it worked. Khan gave off incredible menace and psychopath vibes there. He was naked and should have been vulnerable, but instead he was really menacing, which made the scene work for character development. That was a totally different thing than the ridiculously awkward Carol panty shot.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Please. I found those complaints just as silly as the Carol Marcus complaints. What exactly are we expecting? These are the voyages of pretty people in space. This is the franchise that gave us the Holodeck and Troi as the Goddess of Love, the planet that people make love at the drop of a hat (any hat) and the sex resort planet (Risa).

What I do find silly is the suggestion that Trek shouldn't stop doing stupid stuff just because it used to do stupid stuff in the past.

A better example of Trek playing with sex appeal is when Saavik is wearing a robe with her hair down in the turbo-lift. She didn't need to flash her boobs or anything.

Yeah. If your a fifty-year old guy with a heart condition.

Not really.

The difference is that the camera never lingers on Kirk's pine tree.

And how long is the scene with Carol? Was it even long enough to count as a "linger"?

Exactly. The fake outrage caused by those two seconds is laughable. On the long list of atrocities against women that Trek has committed, this one is waaayyyyyyy down the list.

You were initially comparing Alice Eve in her underwear to Chris Pine in his underwear, I'm just pointing out that the camera is never as interested in Pine as it is with Eve. Most we see of him in his underwear is when he jumps out of bed and the camera stays on the two cat ladies. Then there's the first flick where we linger more on the Orion girl and Uhura in their underwear as Kirk watches under the bed. Funny thing is, TOS seemed to have no problem wanting to show hot women AND a shirtless Shatner walking down the corridors.

I do agree, the thing with Alice Eve isn't an atrocity or horribly misogynist in the way of something like BEVERLY HILLS COP II or TRANSFORMERS. Personally, I'm not outraged, but I do roll my eyes at it because of how poorly it's handled. If they wanted to show off Alice Eve in her underwear, they could have found better ways to do that other than just have her randomly take off her clothes in a shuttle for a look at her body. I think it's the execution of it that outrages most folks. It's more crass than sexy.

 

[Christopher]

The mood and chemistry of the whole thing was all just wrong. If they had gotten a playful mood, or some real chemistry with the actors, it might have worked as sexy, but they hit all the wrong notes. It's not just about the gratuitous panty shot, it was all in the execution. Done in a different way the same amount or more of flesh could've been exposed and I wouldn't have found it objectionable.

Right. The criticisms of the scene aren't a prudish reaction to the presence of skin, they're a recognition that it was done awkwardly and poorly, in a way that served neither of the characters well. If the intent was to hint that Jim Kirk and Carol Marcus have a future as a romantic couple, then it failed in that regard, because it played more as creepy voyeurism than mutual attraction.

Roddenberry may have insisted his actresses show a lot of skin, but at least he never made it seem that the characters were uncomfortable with the exposure or that the male characters were ogling them without their consent. He pandered to male gaze, but at least he let the female characters show off their bodies willingly and without shame. Even in the raunchy sex comedy film he produced and wrote, Roger Vadim's Pretty Maids All in a Row -- in which Rock Hudson plays a high school guidance counselor who sleeps with his underage female students, essentially a serial statutory rapist -- all the nude scenes feature female characters who are quite happy and eager to disrobe in private for their male observers, and the one scene where a man does voyeurize an unconsenting girl (when inept cop Keenan Wynn barges in on Hudson and one of his paramours in a parked car) portrays the man's invasive gaze in a negative light. Plenty of later high school sex comedies made male voyeurism of unconsenting girls a standard trope, but Roddenberry didn't go for that. He sexualized women like crazy, but always gave them agency as well, portraying them as active and consenting participants and frequently as aggressors. He wouldn't have hesitated to include a scene wherein a female character stripped to her underwear to seduce Kirk, but I don't think he would've included a scene where Kirk leered sophomorically at an underwear-clad woman without her consent.

 

[Franklin]

The mood and chemistry of the whole thing was all just wrong. If they had gotten a playful mood, or some real chemistry with the actors, it might have worked as sexy, but they hit all the wrong notes. It's not just about the gratuitous panty shot, it was all in the execution. Done in a different way the same amount or more of flesh could've been exposed and I wouldn't have found it objectionable.

Right. The criticisms of the scene aren't a prudish reaction to the presence of skin, they're a recognition that it was done awkwardly and poorly, in a way that served neither of the characters well. If the intent was to hint that Jim Kirk and Carol Marcus have a future as a romantic couple, then it failed in that regard, because it played more as creepy voyeurism than mutual attraction.

Roddenberry may have insisted his actresses show a lot of skin, but at least he never made it seem that the characters were uncomfortable with the exposure or that the male characters were ogling them without their consent. He pandered to male gaze, but at least he let the female characters show off their bodies willingly and without shame. Even in the raunchy sex comedy film he produced and wrote, Roger Vadim's Pretty Maids All in a Row -- in which Rock Hudson plays a high school guidance counselor who sleeps with his underage female students, essentially a serial statutory rapist -- all the nude scenes feature female characters who are quite happy and eager to disrobe in private for their male observers, and the one scene where a man does voyeurize an unconsenting girl (when inept cop Keenan Wynn barges in on Hudson and one of his paramours in a parked car) portrays the man's invasive gaze in a negative light. Plenty of later high school sex comedies made male voyeurism of unconsenting girls a standard trope, but Roddenberry didn't go for that. He sexualized women like crazy, but always gave them agency as well, portraying them as active and consenting participants and frequently as aggressors. He wouldn't have hesitated to include a scene wherein a female character stripped to her underwear to seduce Kirk, but I don't think he would've included a scene where Kirk leered sophomorically at an underwear-clad woman without her consent.

Well, she could have asked him to leave the shuttle while she changed. And knowing that Kirk has a "reputation," if she feared he'd take a look at her, she probably should've.

I doubt Kirk just couldn't hold himself any more and had to take a leering look. It's more likely he got frustrated trying to carry on the conversation with his head turned. When he turned around, he knew it was an awkward situation (and being Kirk, he probably was taken a bit aback because she was gorgeous and took a longer look than he should've). Then, she matter-of-factly told him to turn around, and he dutifully did. Throughout it all, Kirk seemed to be the one embarrassed and uncomfortable, not Carol.

 

[BillJ]

I love that we're now trying to jump into the actresses head to prove a point. An actress that has done nude work in the past.

 

[Christopher]

Well, she could have asked him to leave the shuttle while she changed. And knowing that Kirk has a "reputation," if she feared he'd take a look at her, she probably should've.

Well, of course it's always wrong to blame the woman's behavior in a case like this; it's men's responsibility to control themselves and treat women with respect regardless of what the women choose to wear or how they choose to act. Carol had every reason to expect Kirk to behave as any decent adult male professional should behave, i.e. to respect his fellow officer, keep his mind on the crisis, and restrain his libido while he was on duty. They were in a crisis situation where it was necessary to change swiftly into specialized gear, requiring that modesty be set aside, and the professional thing to do would've been just to get on with it and treat each other as crewmates instead of lust objects. The fault lies with Kirk -- and with the writers and director who chose to present the scene the way they did.

I doubt Kirk just couldn't hold himself any more and had to take a leering look. It's more likely he got frustrated trying to carry on the conversation with his head turned. When he turned around, he knew it was an awkward situation (and being Kirk, he probably was taken a bit aback because she was gorgeous and took a longer look than he should've). Then, she matter-of-factly told him to turn around, and he dutifully did. Throughout it all, Kirk seemed to be the one embarrassed and uncomfortable, not Carol.

Maybe, but the camera still made a point of giving the audience a full-on view of Carol in her underwear. Her exposure wasn't treated matter-of-factly but as a cause for leering, by Kirk, the camera, and the audience. More to the point, the promoters of the film went out of their way to include her underwear scene in the trailers and commercials, which made it come off as even more pandering and crass. It could've been handled better.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Well, I guess we all view things very differently.

For me, the underwear scene was a brief, humorous aside played for laughs - which it achieved from the audience (male and female) every time I saw it in theatres.

I don't care whether it was relevant to, or drove the plot forward at all. It was a quick laugh that worked well in the movie while establishing a nice chemistry between Kirk and Marcus.

The underware in question isn't even particularly skimpy, revealing or titilating IMHO - unlike many "worse" examples from across the franchise.

I find much of what I've read about this scene to be OTT and reactionary in the extreme - and pretty hysterical to be honest.

 

[BillJ]

I find much of what I've read about this scene to be OTT and reactionary in the extreme - and pretty hysterical to be honest.

My wife, a pretty staunch feminist, laughed about people getting in an uproar over it.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I find much of what I've read about this scene to be OTT and reactionary in the extreme - and pretty hysterical to be honest.

My wife, a pretty staunch feminist, laughed about people getting in an uproar over it.

Yup, my Mrs is a feminist too. She laughed with me in the theatre! No complaints at all.

 

[Christopher]

Again, I don't think the reaction is moral outrage so much as a recognition that the scene was clumsily handled and felt more juvenile than romantic.

 

[BillJ]

I find much of what I've read about this scene to be OTT and reactionary in the extreme - and pretty hysterical to be honest.

My wife, a pretty staunch feminist, laughed about people getting in an uproar over it.

Yup, my Mrs is a feminist too. She laughed with me in the theatre! No complaints at all.

Besides, I thought in Gene's utopia, people were suppose to be over these types of hangups? Does anyone here think Gene would've been upset with the Eve shot?

 

[BillJ]

Again, I don't think the reaction is moral outrage so much as a recognition that the scene was clumsily handled and felt more juvenile than romantic.

There has been a ton of moral outrage on these boards over those two seconds.

 

[Franklin]

Again, I don't think the reaction is moral outrage so much as a recognition that the scene was clumsily handled and felt more juvenile than romantic.

Could've been it was supposed to be juvenile? Again, she knows about his reputation and yet was careless enough to change clothes in his presence. Rather silly and childish (naively so), itself

 

[Christopher]

Could've been it was supposed to be juvenile? Again, she knows about his reputation and yet was careless enough to change clothes in his presence. Rather silly and childish (naively so), itself

No. No. NO. You do NOT blame the woman for the inappropriate behavior of the men who victimize her. That's the mentality society uses to excuse men for committing rape. It's not the women's fault for being "careless," because men have the ability and responsibility to control themselves. If a man fails to treat a woman with basic respect for her rights as a human being rather than a possession he's entitled to claim, that is entirely, absolutely, 100 percent the man's fault. Because she doesn't control his eyes or his muscles or his speech. Whatever he chooses to say or do to her is his decision, under his power to control.


http://comicsalliance.com/sexual-ha...-comics-superheroes-lessons-men-geek-culture/

Sexual harassment isn’t an occupational hazard. It’s not a glitch in the complex matrix of modern life. It’s not something that just “happens.” It’s something men do. It’s a choice men make. It’s a problem men enable. It’s sometimes a crime men commit. And it is not in the power nor the responsibility of women to wage war on this crime.

It’s on us.

http://johnpavlovitz.com/2014/06/20...-ownership-and-why-its-not-the-girls-problem/

Sometimes, doing what’s right toward someone, even needs to transcend their attitude about themselves. If a girl you know shows too much, advertises too much, and offers too much, it doesn’t mean you can take too much, because it’s about the value you assign to her, and to yourself.

At the end of the day, young men, this is a matter of ownership.

You don’t now, and never will own her, and so any part of your actions that break the plane of her body, aren’t your jurisdiction, they’re hers.

The only thing you own; the only thing you’ll ever own, are your choices.

That’s why it’s called self-control.

 

[BillJ]

...

Jesus Christ, are Trek fans really this damned juvenile about sex and human anatomy? Why in the world would she even care if he sees her in her skivvies to begin with? Starfleet is a combined service and I doubt this is the first time someone has changed uniforms in front of someone of the opposite sex. There is literally nothing there for Kirk to see, it is all covered.

Trying to somehow make this into a rape analogy is so fucking wrong on so many levels.

At 43 years of age, I've seen real, live women naked. Some folks around here should attempt it sometime. That way they don't get flustered when they see someone in their underwear.

 

[Franklin]

...

Jesus Christ, are Trek fans really this damned juvenile about sex and human anatomy? Why in the world would she even care if he sees her in her skivvies to begin with? Starfleet is a combined service and I doubt this is the first time someone has changed uniforms in front of someone of the opposite sex. There is literally nothing there for Kirk to see, it is all covered.

Trying to somehow make this into a rape analogy is so fucking wrong on so many levels.

At 43 years of age, I've seen real, live women naked. Some folks around here should attempt it sometime. That way they don't get flustered when they see someone in their underwear.

Yep. It's like the "Seinfeld" episode where Jerry explains that men's eyes are simply drawn to a woman's cleavage. It can't be helped. It's innate. He was explaining himself over an incident where he got caught taking a long glimpse at the cleavage of a TV executive's teenage daughter. Does this mean Seinfeld was advocating statutory rape? Thirty-something men can stare at the cleavage of teenage girls and it's OK because it can't be helped? Of course not.

And as I said before, I'm not convinced Kirk turned around for any prurient reason in the first place. I think he was just frustrated continuing the conversation with his back turned. His timing was bad, and he was more embarrassed than Carol was.