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

[HaventGotALife]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

Pretty Starships? One is an object, the other is a human being. It's not a Non-sequiter. This is a part of the image we are cultivating for people to follow.

You have missed his point. When you are watching a Star Trek film, you expect to see certain things. There is nothing wrong with having these expectations, but you can't blame others for not getting what you expected.

Carol Marcus is a young, lovely, highly intelligent scientist. There is a scene in the movie where she is changing, and we catch a glimpse of her in her underwear. Just what were you expecting in that particular moment?

That's why I keep asking you whether she should feel ashamed of her body. She doesn't fit the United States' definition of "normal" body type, so she is used as an object to promote shame. Why?

Because, as someone else pointed out, she lost weight for this scene. Because eating spinach only is not a healthy diet, it is crash-dieting. Because the consequences of doing nothing about this, even with a progressive universe like Star Trek, is that we have children at increased risks for BDD and eating disorders. It's a shame that she felt she needed to lose weight for the scene. It's a shame we have a society that says you have to be rail thin to have a loving relationship--Kirk is supposed to fall in love with her, and apparently, this scene is supposed to be the start of that relationship.

"And, yet, the more the merrier." He is uninterested in her qualifications. He doesn't say "Hey, we have these torpedoes and we need someone like this on-board." His attitude leads me to the conclusion he is attracted to her, and therefore, it doesn't need an actress to crash-diet to get that across. We need this scene like we need a hole in the head. That's my point.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

Pretty Starships? One is an object, the other is a human being.

It's called an analogy. You'll notice that in order to build an analogy to humans, you'll have to use non-humans.

It's not a Non-sequiter.

Sequitur. Of course it is. It doesn't follow from the sentence that precedes it in any way. And NO ONE has ever said that people that are less attractive can't fall in love. You made that up.

This is a part of the image we are cultivating for people to follow.

You mean, the one we've been cultivating for about 3000 years ? Yeah, that's been devastating to humanity. I mean come on, we've been making art about idealised people for at least that long.

Why do people want to be beautiful?

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

Since when has it become a crime to have beauty and brains?

Alice Eve as Dr. Carol Marcus in STID and Denise Richards as Dr. Christmas Jones in TND

 

[Amaris]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

Because, as someone else pointed out, she lost weight for this scene. Because eating spinach only is not a healthy diet, it is crash-dieting. Because the consequences of doing nothing about this, even with a progressive universe like Star Trek, is that we have children at increased risks for BDD and eating disorders. It's a shame that she felt she needed to lose weight for the scene. It's a shame we have a society that says you have to be rail thin to have a loving relationship--Kirk is supposed to fall in love with her, and apparently, this scene is supposed to be the start of that relationship.

"And, yet, the more the merrier." He is uninterested in her qualifications. He doesn't say "Hey, we have these torpedoes and we need someone like this on-board." His attitude leads me to the conclusion he is attracted to her, and therefore, it doesn't need an actress to crash-diet to get that across. We need this scene like we need a hole in the head. That's my point.

Actually, it wasn't a crash diet. Apparently, she stayed on this spinach diet for five months, during the shooting.

Now, have you seen Alice Eve before she did this film? I have, and she looks fantastic. Her words, according to RadarOnline, were "You’ve got to look as if you can hold your own on the Enterprise, and that means you’ve got to be in proper fighting shape,” the 31-year-old explained, revealing that she started a diet consisting of pretty much only spinach a week after she learned that she nabbed the role, which she continued for a whopping 5 months during filming."

In other words, she had the role already, and she chose to go on a spinach diet so she would look more "fit," whatever that particular term means to her. Note the usage of the words "pretty much" before "spinach." Those two words contain quite a bit of hidden weight, no pun intended. What is a "pretty much" spinach diet? As a vegetarian, you could say I'm on a "pretty much" spinach diet, as I have lost a large amount of weight, and I am all the healthier for it, and I certainly don't starve.

The only people I see saying she starved is RadarOnline. She certainly didn't say it. Have you seen what Alice Eve looks like outside of Trek? Here's a picture of her from 2005:

Here's an image of her from 2012:

Ms. Eve certainly doesn't seem to have a problem looking fit, and she certainly doesn't seem to have a problem shedding clothes for the camera.

So while I understand your sentiments, I think you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to young Ms. Eve, as well as Mr. Lindelof.

 

[sj4iy]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

Oh, as the mother of a 4-year old little girl, anyone showing their young daughter this movie has bigger issues than body image.

I watched violent Japanese anime at 5. Didn't seem to scar me.

She gets scared when its dark outside and corrects me if I accidentally curse. I'm not going to show her a movie where bones are crushed, people are repeatedly punched in the face, suicide bombers blow up buildings, and a madman shoots up a room full of helpless people. It's not appropriate material for preschoolers.

 

[AbramsIsSatan]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

Eve: almost naked because it's fun and people like to see her almost naked

Uhura: almost naked because it made for a hilarious scene (and actually made sense in the context of the scene).

In maybe the worst Star Trek movie, even female nearly-nekkidness was used more appropriately.

Damon Lindelof...needs to go.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

In short, the scene shows an actor at a normal healthy weight. (Not that her weight is any other person's business.)

That's a fact.

Anyone looking at Eve who concludes that they should starve in order to resemble her has deeper cognitive difficulties.

Eve's not shy; she's appeared naked on film before, never mind wearing a bikini.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

It's a crash diet...for five months?!?! You made it worse and, what's more, you made it known in an argument that is supposed to refute me? She's trying to fit that perfect ideal. Do you think a soldier would live on spinach for five months? Are they in fighting shape? This culture is nuts!

Why is it different than 3,000 years ago, as some have suggested is a time frame we have been doing this? Because the standard of beauty is getting smaller while the average woman is getting bigger. This is a recipe for disaster.

Let's paint a scenario: I want to look like Alice Eve on my wedding night. I try the spinach-only diet. I develop an eating disorder and this is the first step towards that. Would that be okay?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

Let's paint a scenario: I want to look like Alice Eve on my wedding night. I try the spinach-only diet. I develop an eating disorder and this is the first step towards that. Would that be okay?

Who cares? You're manufacturing an hysterical, hypothetical nightmare scenario in order to pin blame on some people who made a movie you don't like.

That is irrational and I won't deign to take your position seriously as long as you approach the subject this way. No one should, really.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

Let's paint a scenario: I want to look like Alice Eve on my wedding night. I try the spinach-only diet. I develop an eating disorder and this is the first step towards that. Would that be okay?

Who cares? You're manufacturing an hysterical nightmare scenario and trying to pin the hypothetical blame on some people who made a movie you don't like.

There is no reason in that, and I won't deign to take your position seriously as long as you approach the subject this way.

I have backed up my arguments, one presented in this scenario, with scientific research. I suggest you click on the link in the 19th post of this thread, my first. Read it all. Then we can have that conversation you would like to have.

 

[Tiberius]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

]Hopefully, never! "Family" movies are boring movies for boring families. If you are concerned about kids, watch out for the glorification of mindless violence, not for a woman wearing a bikini.

What about Back to the Future? They're great family movies.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

I've been around a long time (IOW, I'm old). Of all the folks I've dated I'd say three had physiques something like Eve's. None of them had eating disorders; all were pretty young and had active life styles.

Eve doesn't give any indication of having an eating disorder and she's not underweight. Trying to lay some kind of shame on her or the filmmakers because some people have such problems is reprehensible and insupportable.

But by all means carry on shrieking about how this young woman is responsible for people starving themselves.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

It's a crash diet...for five months?!?! You made it worse and, what's more, you made it known in an argument that is supposed to refute me? She's trying to fit that perfect ideal. Do you think a soldier would live on spinach for five months? Are they in fighting shape? This culture is nuts!

Hi. Vegetarian here. I live on spinach, and that's "pretty much" it. I've safely lost weight, have gained muscle mass, and my vitals are looking better than ever. Whether she calls it a "crash diet" or "healthy eating", the results are the same in this case.

By the way, eating "pretty much" only spinach for five months is not a "crash diet." That's a change of eating habits. A crash diet doesn't generally last more than a few weeks at most, hence the term "crash," and is usually devoid of positive nutrition. Spinach is wonderful for you! Learn more here: The Wonderful Nutrition of Spinach

Why is it different than 3,000 years ago, as some have suggested is a time frame we have been doing this? Because the standard of beauty is getting smaller while the average woman is getting bigger. This is a recipe for disaster.

Human beings, on average, are getting larger. As they do, weight guidelines will change.

As for beauty standards, they will change. There was a time when larger women were in demand. Now it's smaller women. In time, that will likely change again. Men and women should not have to fit one idea of beauty, that's true. The goal should be health, not aesthetic acceptance. That, however, is the way humanity is. It's in our genes. The very nature of beauty is for our brains to recognize the most fertile and advantageous person by which to mate. What we find desirable today may not be what we find desirable a hundred years from now, but that basic desire for beauty will still exist, in whatever form it may take. That's a recipe for biology.

Let's paint a scenario: I want to look like Alice Eve on my wedding night. I try the spinach-only diet. I develop an eating disorder and this is the first step towards that. Would that be okay?

Firstly; Spinach only? Even Alice ate more than spinach (hence where the "pretty much" comes in), and she did it over the course of five months. To add, you will not develop an eating disorder from eating too much spinach. Spinach contains a large number of vitamins and minerals essential to proper growth and development.

Secondly; if this is something your potential partner wants you to do, tell him or her to fuck off. If this is something you want to do, then it would be wise for you to be certain that a majority spinach diet is a good health decision. If you jump right into it, it's not Alice's or Hollywood's fault you didn't look before you leaped. It's yours.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. All of these ideas, these standards of beauty, it's easy enough to show that these are fantasy, that most human beings won't fit inside these standards. Let them develop healthy ideas about body image, but you seem to want to place the blame at Hollywood's feet, and if only Hollywood were raising children, you would have a point, but they're not. There are many reasons a child develops poor body image. Much of it comes from teenagers and young adults being assholes. The movie, TV, and fashion industry don't help, but they're not the root cause. They are merely a symptom, one that has to be addressed by a parent or trusted authority figure, and if necessary, a physician or psychiatrist.

You're not helping, however, by directing bombastic screeds toward Hollywood, Damon Lindelof, Alice Eve, or anyone here.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

You know who could have stuck to spinach this time out? Quinto. Spock's porked up quite a bit.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

You know who could have stuck to spinach this time out? Quinto. Spock's porked up quite a bit.

I think it makes him look adorable. Pudgy Vulcans can be adorable, I'm pretty certain of it.

 

[EightiesKid]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

I'd be more concerned about my kids seeing a head being crushed than a woman in her underwear.

Ditto on this.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

It's a crash diet...for five months?!?! You made it worse and, what's more, you made it known in an argument that is supposed to refute me? She's trying to fit that perfect ideal. Do you think a soldier would live on spinach for five months? Are they in fighting shape? This culture is nuts!

Hi. Vegetarian here. I live on spinach, and that's "pretty much" it. I've safely lost weight, have gained muscle mass, and my vitals are looking better than ever. Whether she calls it a "crash diet" or "healthy eating", the results are the same in this case.

By the way, eating "pretty much" only spinach for five months is not a "crash diet." That's a change of eating habits. A crash diet doesn't generally last more than a few weeks at most, hence the term "crash," and is usually devoid of positive nutrition. Spinach is wonderful for you! Learn more here: The Wonderful Nutrition of Spinach

Why is it different than 3,000 years ago, as some have suggested is a time frame we have been doing this? Because the standard of beauty is getting smaller while the average woman is getting bigger. This is a recipe for disaster.

Human beings, on average, are getting larger. As they do, weight guidelines will change.

As for beauty standards, they will change. There was a time when larger women were in demand. Now it's smaller women. In time, that will likely change again. Men and women should not have to fit one idea of beauty, that's true. The goal should be health, not aesthetic acceptance. That, however, is the way humanity is. It's in our genes. The very nature of beauty is for our brains to recognize the most fertile and advantageous person by which to mate. What we find desirable today may not be what we find desirable a hundred years from now, but that basic desire for beauty will still exist, in whatever form it may take. That's a recipe for biology.

Let's paint a scenario: I want to look like Alice Eve on my wedding night. I try the spinach-only diet. I develop an eating disorder and this is the first step towards that. Would that be okay?

Firstly; Spinach only? Even Alice ate more than spinach (hence where the "pretty much" comes in), and she did it over the course of five months. To add, you will not develop an eating disorder from eating too much spinach. Spinach contains a large number of vitamins and minerals essential to proper growth and development.

Secondly; if this is something your potential partner wants you to do, tell him or her to fuck off. If this is something you want to do, then it would be wise for you to be certain that a majority spinach diet is a good health decision. If you jump right into it, it's not Alice's or Hollywood's fault you didn't look before you leaped. It's yours.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. All of these ideas, these standards of beauty, it's easy enough to show that these are fantasy, that most human beings won't fit inside these standards. Let them develop healthy ideas about body image, but you seem to want to place the blame at Hollywood's feet, and if only Hollywood were raising children, you would have a point, but they're not. There are many reasons a child develops poor body image. Much of it comes from teenagers and young adults being assholes. The movie, TV, and fashion industry don't help, but they're not the root cause. They are merely a symptom, one that has to be addressed by a parent or trusted authority figure, and if necessary, a physician or psychiatrist.

You're not helping, however, by directing bombastic screeds toward Hollywood, Damon Lindelof, Alice Eve, or anyone here.

Why does it take an intervention from an authority figure to make a healthy woman? Wouldn't it be easier if we had healthy images on billboards and movie screens across America? Across the western world?

A generalized diet is healthy. Living on one thing, healthy or not, is not normal. I suggest you find a variety of foods because the body adapts and stops losing weight. Because the human animal craves a variety of foods. Because we have been blessed, biologically, with the ability to process a tremendous amount of items we call food into energy. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes no sense. From living a day to day life, it makes no sense. The only place it makes sense is where people are told to be rail-thin.

This image is helping that image. This image has been used to sell the movie. This image has nothing to do with the movie. I am at a loss to why those facts don't invite criticism in your eyes.

Something else to read: UK Psychiatrists call for changes to Advertising (old article)

 

[Amaris]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

Why does it take an intervention from an authority figure to make a healthy woman? Wouldn't it be easier if we had healthy images on billboards and movie screens across America? Across the western world?

No. You need authority figures to educate you on how to eat properly, because if it were left up to children, they'd be eating chocolate covered chocolate pixie stix. Any kind of education, for a child, will require intervention.

When children learn about sex, that requires intervention, unless you want them to learn that from billboards and movie screens as well.

Seriously, you have to be a parent and do your job, and that means teaching proper eating habits, among all of the other intervening required to raise a well rounded child.

A generalized diet is healthy. Living on one thing, healthy or not, is not normal. I suggest you find a variety of foods because the body adapts and stops losing weight. Because the human animal craves a variety of foods. Because we have been blessed, biologically, with the ability to process a tremendous amount of items we call food into energy.

Once more, you ignore the "pretty much" in her statement. You cannot live on spinach alone, and if you tried, you wouldn't be the strapping young lady she just so happens to be in the movie. Remember her words? One in particular that she used was "fit." Now, her definition might be slightly different, but you won't be "fit" by eating spinach as your only source of nutrition. It provides a large number of nutrients, but you will still need some other supplementary sources.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes no sense. From living a day to day life, it makes no sense. The only place it makes sense is where people are told to be rail-thin.

That is an assumption on your part. From an evolutionary standpoint, putting on makeup, going to work in an office, and getting a burrito for lunch doesn't make any sense. Fortunately, we don't rely on seeing everything from an evolutionary perspective. I, for one, have no intention of shitting in the woods unless I absolutely have to do so.

As for day to day life, the way we live in a society is not necessarily conducive to an evolutionary standpoint. The way we live today flies in the face of the way we have lived in the past. If you're going to tackle that, good luck.

This image is helping that image. This image has been used to sell the movie. This image has nothing to do with the movie. I am at a loss to why those facts don't invite criticism in your eyes.

Because I believe in responsible parenting, as well as proper education. If a child is learning about nutrition and body image from Hollywood, and not from a parent or trusted authority figure, then the problem lies with that person or persons. You're shifting blame to something that has no responsibility whatsoever to teach your child anything of value.

If you are at a loss, then perhaps you should start asking more questions rather than making more assumptions. That may be the best approach.

Something else to read: UK Psychiatrists call for changes to Advertising (old article)

What does this have to do with Alice Eve's perfectly healthy fitness level and weight? If you want to go after anyone, go after RadarOnline for saying she starved herself, because that was a lie on their part, not hers.

Alice Eve maintains a healthy figure, one that is fit and well muscled. That requires discipline, not "crash dieting." Someone is getting their facts wrong, and methinks it's the gossip magazines and groups that have an agenda.

On a further note, Lindelof should have never apologized for the underwear scene. He did nothing wrong, and neither did Ms. Eve.

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

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.

You don't think Zoe Saldana's undressing in '09 was completely useless in the scene ?

For me, "useless" is neither here nor there. What's important is that it wasn't overtly gratuitous like the Eve scene was.

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.

You don't think Zoe Saldana's undressing in '09 was completely useless in the scene ?

Hell, the whole scene is gratuitous. Couldn't they have had Kirk and Gaila sitting on a sofa fully clothed discussing Bible passages?

It could have happened that way, but I don't think cadets have couches in their dorm rooms, so that wouldn't have made sense. They could have been sitting fully clothed and talking on her bed, but the movie made it clear that both Gaila and Kirk were sexual "birds of a feather." I had no problems with that because it was handled well.

Also, that scene with Eve's character could have easily played out with Kirk not turning around to look at Dr. Marcus as she requested. Ever think about that?

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.

You don't think Zoe Saldana's undressing in '09 was completely useless in the scene ?

For the record, I don't think it's partial nudity if both breasts and genitals are covered. Seriously, partial nudity when she's wearing her bra and underwear?

I hope some of these fans never have to go to a beach or public pool.

And herein lies the issue, Carcazoid. They weren't at a beach. It was a professional environment and she didn't give him permission to look. So, he sneaked a peak--Okay. Kirk is Kirk, but the way that scene happened was just weird. I mean, for someone changing out of one outfit into another, she sure was posing for him (and the male audience that's watching).

Now, I don't have a problem with nudity or partial nudity (and in that environment it is partial nudity--would she look like that at desk job? No), but if it's going to be that overtly gratuitous, then people shouldn't get huffy if other people notice and call it pathetic.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Lindelof On Eve Scene

And herein lies the issue, Carcazoid. They weren't at a beach. It was a professional environment and she didn't give him permission to look. So, he sneaked a peak--Okay. Kirk is Kirk, but the way that scene happened was just weird. I mean, for someone changing out of one outfit into another, she sure was posing for him (and the male audience that's watching).

Now, I don't have a problem with nudity or partial nudity (and in that environment it is partial nudity--would she look like that at desk job? No), but if it's going to be that overtly gratuitous, then people shouldn't get huffy if other people notice and call it pathetic.

Kirk turned around to speak to her, and saw her in her underwear. He had the sense to look abashed. It was a cute scene, nothing more. That it's been made into the issue it has is absurd.