No. I'm saying my wife laughed with me in the theatre and had no complaints.
Orci talks about Star Trek 3
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
I can see why one would be uncomfortable with the scene, having a woman strip to her underwear in a room with a man of authority, oogling at her (showing how this Kirk and Marcus don't have much restraint or sense of decency). I'm not sure how this is supposed to build up to their relationship beyond "omg ur hawt, letz hav teh secks" because nothing else seems to really work and I don't see much chemistry between the two. It just further reinforces for me how Marcus is such a useless character throughout the film, only being introduced because fans of TWOK would gasp over a reference to that film.
It is an odd scene, I'll grant that. But it is also one of several scenes in the movie that doesn't exactly show Kirk at his best, which may also be part of the point. The throwaway line about Chapel isn't at all flattering.
Still, the oddest part to me is Marcus deciding to change right there in the shuttle at that moment. What if that had been Pike instead of Kirk? Or, what if that had been one of a dozen other male Starfleet captain instead of Kirk? It's just odd and awkward all the way around. Beyond that, it's also perfectly innocent and a more or less forgettable scene. You can even Google "Alice Eve" and get far more provocative pictures of her (so I'm told) that have absolutely no other point than to show off her body for as long as anyone wants to ogle it.
Still, the oddest part to me is Marcus deciding to change right there in the shuttle at that moment. What if that had been Pike instead of Kirk? Or, what if that had been one of a dozen other male Starfleet captain instead of Kirk? It's just odd and awkward all the way around. Beyond that, it's also perfectly innocent and a more or less forgettable scene. You can even Google "Alice Eve" and get far more provocative pictures of her (so I'm told) that have absolutely no other point than to show off her body for as long as anyone wants to ogle it.
I'd believe that if they actually followed that up with something. The most realistic reaction from him would have been him going "Wait, what? What are you doing?", even after oogling her. Having him just gaze and then look away in silence felt like something an awkward 15 year old virgin would do.
I think Marcus was pretty useful by getting them to investigate the torpedoes and to question her father. Also she was brave and strong on a number of occasions.
Maybe. He could see her and she says, "Turn around!" After he turns around, he could've said something in a sheepish, defensive tone like, "You could've asked me to step out of the shuttle," to which she could respond, "You could show more restraint," or something like that to put him in his place.
At the same time, no words kind of works at the moment because I think Kirk was actually at a loss for them.
I think more words would have helped just so we can get a better idea of how they get along and form a relationship. As it is, it's pretty sparse to almost nonexistent. So much more could have been done. It makes me wish there were a tv series instead so we could see that development throughout a season.
Dunno about feminism, but I've sometimes pondered about men and women serving together in the military, and not being bothered by something as simple as changing in a mixed-sex company. I don't know if such a thing happens in the real world or how often, but given the problems women still face today, I'm thinking Carol Marcus being so careless might be a symptom of progress elsewhere. Aren't there situations where it can be genuinely dangerous to risk being seen by your captain like that, especially if he has a reputation? I have no idea about it, but given some of the horror stories I've heard, I wouldn't be surprised it that's the case.
The context I had in mind was different and completely unrelated, though. I was thinking of a potential comedy (?) situations with a female starship captain who is a little rough, daring, unconcerned about nonsensical things like that and with an attitude of a heavy metal musician. Her ship would find itself stuck somewhere before the 19-18th century. The landing party would end up in the company of a group of men and women from the high elites, and the captain would casually claim superior rank over the monarch himself. In her time, he would have no legal authority, so how could she resist. Eventually, some of the most distinguished individuals will end up on the ship and watch in shock as the empress-superior casually changes together with a group of soldiers and proceeds to do things even more outrageous. (Maybe pulling something like this would be outrageous enough?) In a wider historical context, being in your underwear is, surprisingly enough, a step forward in feminism, even if that wasn't even close to anyone's point here.
Anyway, point is, showing skin purely for male audience's benefit might not be the nicest thing in today's world, but why do you hate Marcus' freedom to change her uniform wherever and however she likes!? Personally, I like to change in the whale tank in the company of George and Gracie, so I always time-travel there when I am putting some clothes on. With a few thousand me in there, Dr. Taylor stopped noticing Spock lately.
I agree. Kirk was definitely at a loss for words right then. Not just because he was seeing an attractive woman in her underwear either. His expression wasn't "ogle" but shock.
My God, that IS brilliant! Utterly and completely brilliant. And the kids sit there digging it while the adults frown.
Yes its a great step forward in feminism when women have the 'freedom' to be in their underwear in front of fully clothed men in authority. Yeh
Using this logic 'Girls of the Playboy Mansion' was an incredibly feminist show
Yes its a great step forward in feminism when women have the 'freedom' to be in their underwear in front of fully clothed men in authority. Yeh
Using this logic 'Girls of the Playboy Mansion' was an incredibly feminist show
I don't think that's what YellowSubmarine said or meant.
Going back to a gay character, I think it works only if it is relevant or contributes to the film. Perhaps if a character's actions were to be motivated by the loss of a same sex partner. This would have to be handled delicately. Having a gay character as the antagonist (the bad guy) would do much more harm than good, IMO.
Yes its a great step forward in feminism when women have the 'freedom' to be in their underwear in front of fully clothed men in authority. Yeh
Using this logic 'Girls of the Playboy Mansion' was an incredibly feminist show
feminism to me is kind of overrated and a lot of the time I find extreme feminism to be destructive to society. women should be strong and be empowered no doubt but when most women start saying the need to be strong and not need a man or men are just there to be conquered and not to be loved and respected as they demand of the man then we run into a lot of problems.
I am all for feminism but I also realize that men and women compliment each other as equals. No need to push one gender over the other.
Carol being in her underwear can be looked at in three ways.
1. she knows she is beautiful and sexy and she is not afraid to show it. it is up to kirk the guy to control his lust and his desire.
2. She is a victim of kirk's women issues.she knows kirk's reputation but she can not just help it as a women but tempt him.
3.Thinking outside the film. JJ Abrams and Lindelof are just extreme shallow. They must have women stripping down in their films for no just reason.
Last edited:
That might become a problem when women actually start saying those things. Before that, we can go back to worrying about more serious and pressing matters, like a future Klingon invasion, or the Borg. Or the health risks associated with the fan outrage after the release of Star Trek 3.
Really?
A lot of men and women think feminism is not necessary nowadays. They forget when women were paid less for doing the same work, when 'rape' victims were forced to expose their sexual history in any court cases, when children were taken from unmarried mothers and fathers weren't required to support their children.
When women come close to being treated as equals with men in society - then feminism may not be necessary.
OK I'm jumping off my soapbox now.
Saying that, STID showing Carol Marcus in her underwear for 3 seconds in noway affects the fate of women in society or brings back the cause of feminism. It was only 3 seconds or so.
It probably in fact bought in a few more bucks to the box office attracting a few people who might think that Star Trek was dull and boring. As a fan I dislike it because it made me think less of Kirk. Maybe other fans 'admire' nuKirk because he's so lucky with the ladies in these situations.
Anyway if Abrams is claiming that Carol Marcus was empowered by that scene I'm not buying it. I still like her character because of the other scenes in the movie
Abrams is making no such claim and you should think less of Kirk. That was the point of the scene, as I saw it. It's a reversal of the popular image of Kirk as the "ladies man". In the old days, Carol Marcus would have never told Kirk to "turn around"--the scene would have cut from where he sees her, implying that Jim Kirk had "done it again". Instead, we get a Jim Kirk who is "put in his place"--one more lesson learned on his way to becoming the more mature Kirk we remember.
I said extreme feminism is destructive at times. women should strive for equality but at the end of the day men and women were created to help and compliment each other.
Look at our America, look at the black family. extremely feminism has destroyed it. when you have extreme liberals telling women especially African american woman to be strong and need no man. they have their babies 70% out of wedlock and without a stable father and partner in the house. many of this guys grow up without a loving father figure and they get involve with crime.
Women should to be told to try and make the relationship work with the man if there is still love there and a sense of commitment. they should not be told to be strong and not need the man because feminism demands so.
I also do not get feminism when it comes to sex a lot of the times. Women think it is feminist to conquer men in bed. they want to conquer men in bed but can not commit to one?
To me that is not that different from prostitution.
if women are so sexually empowered why not find one man to share that it, why go around conquering men when you have no real emotion attachment to them and they call youself a feminist. Sory but I do not buy it.I genuinely agree with the carol scene.it was totally pointless and does a disservice to her character, when Uhura stripped in the first film it made sense, she was changing in her room and she had no idea that Kirk was there, She also seemed mad that Kirk was there and tells him to leave. that is feminism that she displayed.
Uhura all through the film seemed immune to Kirk's ladies charms, Carol on the other hand was asking for it when she stripped in front of him for no just reason.
You lose. Next.
Nope.
Similar threads
