This:
That was the best scene in the movie.
+1. I don't get the outrage. Quoting it so we can all see it again.
I HAVE FIXED THIS MORAL OUTRAGE FOR YOU. YOU ARE ALL WELCOME.
Trek's lowest moment
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
I HAVE FIXED THIS MORAL OUTRAGE FOR YOU. YOU ARE ALL WELCOME.
I HAVE FIXED THIS MORAL OUTRAGE FOR YOU. YOU ARE ALL WELCOME.
Sure....that's great....if you have any morals/politically correct sensitivities to express such an outrage.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE OF US WHO DON'T!?
+1. I don't get the outrage. Quoting it so we can all see it again.
I HAVE FIXED THIS MORAL OUTRAGE FOR YOU. YOU ARE ALL WELCOME.
Sure....that's great....if you have any morals/politically correct sensitivities to express such an outrage.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE OF US WHO DON'T!?
Now you are just being unreasonable.
I'm never unreasonable.....just impossible to deal with.
No, I sincerely don't get it. And please, let's not discriminate. Go ahead and post images of Trek's other "low moments" along those same lines! I know there are plenty! By all means!
Seriously though, there are indeed other aspects of Into Darkness that I don't like at all, even parts that made me angry and genuinely face-palm in the theater. But this scene is not one of them. On the flip side, there are parts of the same film that made me beam and cheer in the theater. Unfortunately for me, the bad came at a critical point in the film and ended up outweighing the good. I still need to rewatch it though. I've only seen it once. But, no, that particular scene didn't bother me in the slightest.
And I realize it's all subjective, but I just don't understand why that specific scene being hated on so much. If you're a feminist, okay I guess I get it. But as BillJ pretty much said...have you not seen the rest of Star Trek and its spin-offs?!?
not getting it and not agreeing with the "outrage" are two different things.
It's basically just another reason to harp on nuTrek anyway. Hypocrisy aside, that particular scene was reminiscent of Michael Bay stuff.
I couldn't care less about this topic. I like boobs. I like her boobs. But I don't care for nuTrek. So this topic doesn't register with me either way. I don't remember TOS too well. So outside of the stupid underwear scenes in ENT, I don't recall trek ever doing this sort of shameless waste of screen time. With that in mind, I will say there's a difference between having sex appeal, and pulling a Michael Bay.
It's basically just another reason to harp on nuTrek anyway. Hypocrisy aside, that particular scene was reminiscent of Michael Bay stuff.
I couldn't care less about this topic. I like boobs. I like her boobs. But I don't care for nuTrek. So this topic doesn't register with me either way. I don't remember TOS too well. So outside of the stupid underwear scenes in ENT, I don't recall trek ever doing this sort of shameless waste of screen time. With that in mind, I will say there's a difference between having sex appeal, and pulling a Michael Bay.
Last edited:
No, I don't get it. Where was this scrutinizing going all the way back to Sherry Jackson's camel toe?
And how could the movie be scrutinized for lacking substance before it came out?
That's right! It was being scrutinized for not having substance before a frame of film ever came out. Fans are so great.
It just happens that in this instance, one side is delusional.
Nah. I'm having too much fun.
No, I don't get it. Where was this scrutinizing going all the way back to Sherry Jackson's camel toe?
And how could the movie be scrutinized for lacking substance before it came out?
That's right! It was being scrutinized for not having substance before a frame of film ever came out. Fans are so great.
I'm not saying that Alice Eve's underwear is high on my list of NuTrek grievances (at all), but the fact that some fans disliked the NuTrek movies before they were released does not free them from all scrutiny post-release. Some of us just don't like the reboot movies.
But If we are going to talk about Trek's lowest moments as far as hyper-sexualizing characters or scenes, I'd say that ENT's Vulcan massage scenes are much worse than anything in TOS or NuTrek. Jolene Blalock's back had more total screen time than the rest of the cast put together -- sans Archer and Trip.
Which is absolutely fair. What isn't fair is to use instances that have occurred in every other iteration of the franchise as proof that Abrams got it wrong.
It's the Blalock's Back Show, featuring Blalock's back!
This thread right here is arguably Trek's lowest moment.
It's the Blalock's Back Show, featuring Blalock's back!
This thread right here is arguably Trek's lowest moment.
Just be glad it was Blalock's Back... and not Baalok's Back.
This. Now I am anything but a big fan of ST09 but if there is a TOS reboot one should not be surprised that there are some echos of Theiss wear in it (this is why TFF, as bad as it is, is among the old movies closest in spirit to TOS). And these are indeed just echos (so if a anything one could complain the other way around, that it is not TOSish enough), it is not like we saw anybody run around for 45min half naked.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you can be, and Trek generally has been, sexy without being demeaning and the context of the scene made it demeaning. As I said before in this case the character explicitly didn't want to be looked at while undressed.
But you've got it backwards. The character isn't being demeaned, because she is demanding, in that solitary moment of exposure, to not be treated thusly, & Kirk is being called out for having done so. It's actually a scene wherein the characters' dynamics are being fleshed out, so to speak, boundaries are drawn, & respect demanded. Sure, she had to be exposed for that to occur, & a certain amount of objectifying goes on as a result, but it's addressed appropriately, imho, & and actual empowerment of her character occurs
Whereas, Shahna (Pictured above) is being paraded about, equally exposed, for an entire episode, solely for the purpose of expressing barbaristic sexualized slavery.
Context matters. I'd say that NuTrek uses its sexualization (Which occurs elsewhere throughout those films, btw) in a more appropriate way than TOS did, or more PC for our modern sensibilities, anyhow
^I thought the filmmakers tried to get you to identify more with Kirk and even though I thought it made him look bad it didn't end with him having learned a lesson.
Shahna, and Kirk's treatment of her, was probably one of the more exploitative instances but at least the episode had the bad guys being more the cause of the exploitation.
Shahna, and Kirk's treatment of her, was probably one of the more exploitative instances but at least the episode had the bad guys being more the cause of the exploitation.
Last edited:
Similar threads
