|
Cingulate posted:I'm sure that could have been shown in a myriad of other ways not nearly as sexy. Sure, but since there is nothing inherently bad or insulting about 'sexy' in Star Trek, I don't see why it would have to be done in a way that's "not nearly as sexy". Even the way the scene plays out represents her as a intelligent, confident woman who's comfortable in her own skin. She's explaining poo poo to him as they walk and isn't missing a beat. They get on the shuttle, she just outright tells him to turn around (so she can change and keep talking), and when he decides to look, she doesn't try to cover up, she just responds with what is effectively "Hey rear end in a top hat, turn...around." It actually says a bit about both characters as well as being a funny moment. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jun 24, 2013 |
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Sure, but since there is nothing inherently bad or insulting about 'sexy' in Star Trek, I don't see why it would have to be done in a way that's "not nearly as sexy". Oh good, because the whole time I was on pins and needles thinking that what I really needed to know about this character was how she reacted to being ogled. Oh, I see, she doesn't like it, she's confident, so it's totally not sexist that the writers dreamed up a scenario in which she's in her underwear. It's not unnecessary and exploitative, it's serious character development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:the writers dreamed up a scenario in which she's in her underwear. Bears repeating that they didn't even really go all the way on doing that. There's no discernible reason for her to change clothes or invite Kirk along for it. She's portrayed as cool and intelligent, yes, but that doesn't substitute for being an actual three-dimensional character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
I liked the scene as I found it whimsical and sexy. Kirk is a dog and the audience loves him for it. That's one of the things that makes Kirk interesting. He's a bad rear end, but he's flawed, a fighting, drinking, rule-bending, rule-breaking woman banging captain of a space ship. It makes Spock that much more perfect as a friend and foil. As far as Trek goes, it was short skirts in TOS which became body suits (seriously tight and revealing ones at that) for Troi and 7 of 9 and beyond. It's always had T&A.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Oh good, because the whole time I was on pins and needles thinking that what I really needed to know about this character was how she reacted to being ogled. Oh, I see, she doesn't like it, she's confident, so it's totally not sexist that the writers dreamed up a scenario in which she's in her underwear. It's not unnecessary and exploitative, it's serious character development. Shockingly it could be both throwing in a scene with a girl in lingerie while at the same time having it be useful. (EDIT: Was missing like half a sentence) It was an entertaining moment. Movies are made for entertainment. I say its a bonus that it did say something about the characters, Just because you declare it sexist and claim it served no purpose doesn't mean that is actually the case. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
I'll give for now that the way the scene played out somehow makes a point about Kirk or whatever. How is what exactly the audience is shown, how it is shown Alice Eve's abs, important for that point? The camera and lighting were pointed that way for a reason. Which? Is it the same reason why Troi wore a miniskirt?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'll give for now that the way the scene played out somehow makes a point about Kirk or whatever. How is what exactly the audience is shown, how it is shown Alice Eve's abs, important for that point? The camera and lighting were pointed that way for a reason. Which? Is it the same reason why Troi wore a miniskirt? It's not important to the point, necessarily. You could have had him turn around while she was in the middle of pulling her shirt off, showing less. If its wasn't a PG13 Star Trek movie, the camera could have shown her completely undressing in the background as he stood there. Nudity is used far less useful situations in far more serious films and yet is never considered to be sexist. And the reason for it is exactly the same. Film is a visual medium, and occasionally you thrown in some titillation. It's like adding spice to food, and the more justification you can make for it the better. At least in this case it shows you a little thing about each character. Nothing crucial, but at the same time not completely pointless. Did the scene need to be made this way? No, not at all. It could have been played way more restrained, or it could have been played even sexier. It was played precisely how Abrams wanted it (which was really tame and brief), and it served its purpose. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'll give for now that the way the scene played out somehow makes a point about Kirk or whatever. How is what exactly the audience is shown, how it is shown Alice Eve's abs, important for that point? The camera and lighting were pointed that way for a reason. Which? Is it the same reason why Troi wore a miniskirt? Honestly my answer is "why not?" There are scenes and times when this kind of titilation would break the mood or be otherwise inappropriate. But things aren't quite that grim or serious yet and there's time to establish a little friction and yes, throw in some sexiness. A little gratuitous, sure, but it's not so out of place that it does significant damage to the narrative. We could use less male gaze in movies overall, but an individual case like this doesn't strike me as especially egregious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'll give for now that the way the scene played out somehow makes a point about Kirk or whatever. How is what exactly the audience is shown, how it is shown Alice Eve's abs, important for that point? The camera and lighting were pointed that way for a reason. Which? Is it the same reason why Troi wore a miniskirt? Yes, there is a point to it. We are given essentially Kirk's perspective on Marucs - his male-gazey, lecherous perspective. We may enjoy seeing her from this angle, but that means her dismissal of, and even contempt for, Kirk is also for us. Also, is there something inherently wrong with showing sexy women in various states of undress?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
The moral of the story is that boners are king and if someone in the audience gets one then it doesn't matter if it's dumb or alienating to others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:The moral of the story is that boners are king and if someone in the audience gets one then it doesn't matter if it's dumb or alienating to others. Someone is always going to be offended. If this scene truly...TRULY...offended your sensibilities, then you must have near puritanical views on sex or are taking social justice to quite an absurd extreme. Lets say this scene is truly badwrong. Is nudity ever acceptable? Can it only appear in certain genres? Should we be careful about letting actresses, and actors for that matter, dress too sexy on screen? What criteria makes taking off a shirt acceptable under the new, offend nobody standards of tv and film-making? Should people who want to appreciate beauty on screen be ridiculed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:The moral of the story is that boners are king and if someone in the audience gets one then it doesn't matter if it's dumb or alienating to others. Well, if the boners and alienation are in equal proportions it kind of cancels out and I guess you end up with something neutral.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Someone is always going to be offended. If this scene truly...TRULY...offended your sensibilities, then you must have near puritanical views on sex or are taking social justice to quite an absurd extreme. Lets say this scene is truly badwrong. Is nudity ever acceptable? Can it only appear in certain genres? Should we be careful about letting actresses, and actors for that matter, dress too sexy on screen? What criteria makes taking off a shirt acceptable under the new, offend nobody standards of tv and film-making? Should people who want to appreciate beauty on screen be ridiculed? I like how defenses of this kind of thing always involve a caricature of some outraged person screaming about how offended they are. Just to be clear, my reaction to this scene was as follows: I rolled my eyes. It made no sense for the situation. It made no sense for the character. It made no sense for the overall tone of the film. There are contexts where sexy scenes make sense in films, but when you start sticking this kind of scene any old place regardless of how much sense it makes, it normalizes the idea that underwear shots are just what you're supposed to do with female characters in any and all contexts. That's embarrassing and alienating. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
People are focussing on the sheer fact of there being a woman in underwear, when there's nothing erotic to the scene whatsoever. She's just kind of standing there, stern and mildly annoyed. Her underpants are less revealing than a bikini and she's not embarrassed or offended. It's like 'what were you expecting?' She's very frank about it. It's not sexualized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
"This scene wasn't hot enough to be stupid."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:"This scene wasn't hot enough to be stupid." The scene has in obvious purpose, in that Kirk is pushed to stop objectifying women. People have a weird thing where they consider all nudity inherently sexual, when that's not what's going on in the scene. It's along the same lines as Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The scene has in obvious purpose, in that Kirk is pushed to stop objectifying women. Let's say it's true that the scene actually functions in this way. Firstly, that theme is a bit of an odd tangent to explore, and doesn't readily connect to other elements of the film- which makes the scene a fairly transparent contrivance. Secondly, it's a bit have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too, isn't it? Kirk is scolded, but of course the camera is not. As I recall, Paramount actually set the shot of Eve in her undies as the default preview image for trailers on Youtube. The scene may be tame, but its use in marketing has a specific purpose to it that doesn't have a lot to do with incidental Manhattan-style nudity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
That kinda made it work better, though. I saw the shot in the trailer and was like, "Okay, we know who Kirk is sleeping with this time." But in the actual film it's got a pretty blatant "not gonna happen" subtext.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
I thought that scene told us a lot about what kind of man Kirk is at this point without resorting to exposition, especially compared to the other Kirk from TOS, and it wasn't particularly gratuitous or even really titillating so I don't know what the fuss is about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I thought that scene told us a lot about what kind of man Kirk is at this point without resorting to exposition, especially compared to the other Kirk from TOS, and it wasn't particularly gratuitous or even really titillating so I don't know what the fuss is about. Using female characters to develop male characters without really bothering to develop the female character is gross. It's grosser when she doesn't even behave believably in order to make it happen. It's grossest when her contrived behavior is such that it gratuitously lets us scope out her bod. (Of course it was gratuitous. She gets naked for no discernible reason.) Also, surely we already knew that Kirk likes to ogle women? He'd done it at least three times prior that I can remember off the top of my head, one of those times already at Alice Eve. I don't dislike that Marcus is able to call Kirk out on it a little, but as others have said, that has nothing to do with any other scene in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 08:52
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Yes, there is a point to it. We are given essentially Kirk's perspective on Marucs - his male-gazey, lecherous perspective. We may enjoy seeing her from this angle, but that means her dismissal of, and even contempt for, Kirk is also for us. Also, is there something inherently wrong with showing sexy women in various states of undress? I'm not saying I was super mad and "offended" at this scene and think the movie is poo poo because at one point Alice Eve was shown naked or whatever, that's some trite straw man. I think the film's super rad, there's, like, space ships and explosions and I had a good time. I'm just not very good at movies and am asking about what might be going here and there. I think your explanation makes sense though. Are you, by that, saying that the scene "quotes" male gaze to make a point about it? And that it might be necessary or optimal here to quote a lecherous ogle to make a point about it? Something like, the camera takes Kirk's POV so that the scolding he gets is felt harder by the audience or so? SuperMechagodzilla posted:People are focussing on the sheer fact of there being a woman in underwear SuperMechagodzilla posted:People have a weird thing where they consider all nudity inherently sexual (I assume by "people", you don't mean Gautier or Space Hamlet or me, since neither of us said that it was the nudity by itself that they found noteworthy, you're just, like, talking about people in general, possibly including you.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Using female characters to develop male characters without really bothering to develop the female character is gross. It's grosser when she doesn't even behave believably in order to make it happen. It's grossest when her contrived behavior is such that it gratuitously lets us scope out her bod. (Of course it was gratuitous. She gets naked for no discernible reason.) She behaves believably. Marcus is totally aware of Kirk's reputation, and finds him pathetic and not worthy of her time. She gets naked anyways because she wants to. It's her body and she's not covering up out of modesty or shame. She's not covering up at all (this is crucial). Kirk turns around and she doesn't care, but she still rejects his advances because she simply doesn't like him. Covering this up with a plot explanation for why women change clothes sometimes would render the scene gratuitous by obfuscating the actual content (Marcus' attack on Kirk's sexism), to make it about dilithium crystals or something (see the ridiculously skeevy decontamination scenes in Enterprise). The irony is that Eve does a fantastic job acting out the callous "yes, I have breasts. gently caress off." That is the characterization, but folks are overlooking that personality because they can see her bra. That's your fault - not the movie's, the character's, or Eve's fault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 13:25
|
|
|
The problem is that the character is not a real person. That's the major divide there. If she were a real life person and this were a documentary about the real exploits of the actual crew of the real Enterprise, then we'd have an argument for it being a display of her confidence or whatever, but it's also super important to remember that Alice Eve the real live person didn't take off her clothes because she thought it would be a really cool way to showcase her character's personality, but because a screenwriter and production team thought "Now would be a good time for this character to take their clothes off for some reason". The people who take issue with the scene aren't necessarily approaching it from a diegetic standpoint, but rather as a view of an endemic problem that shows up in movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:She behaves believably. Marcus is totally aware of Kirk's reputation, and finds him pathetic and not worthy of her time. She gets naked anyways because she wants to. More to that, it follows from the Uhura storyline from the first one, she doesn't just not get with Kirk because she's with Spock, she doesn't get with him because she flat out doesn't like him. She doesn't play coy with him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Using female characters to develop male characters without really bothering to develop the female character is gross. It's grosser when she doesn't even behave believably in order to make it happen. It's grossest when her contrived behavior is such that it gratuitously lets us scope out her bod. (Of course it was gratuitous. She gets naked for no discernible reason.) Well if you're disappointed that neither film in the reboot has developed or utilized the female characters as much as they could have then I fully agree. It's just that the critical focus on that one scene is baffling to me, especially since it is a bit of characterization for a woman and about how women are viewed by Kirk. We already know that Kirk is a bit of a womanizer, but that scene shows that a) he's not particularly good at it, b) he's not always respectful about it, and c) he doesn't handle himself around women like TOS's Kirk would. It develops her by showing that she has no interest in being another one of TOS's softly-focused conquests for the Captain to bed and then forget by the next episode. If you want to call the scene "gross" you're not even out of line with its meaning. It has to do with the rest of the movie because one of the main points throughout the film is that this Kirk is still quite young and immature, and not quite the same person as TOS's Kirk. quote:The problem is that the character is not a real person. That's the major divide there. If she were a real life person and this were a documentary about the real exploits of the actual crew of the real Enterprise, then we'd have an argument for it being a display of her confidence or whatever, but it's also super important to remember that Alice Eve the real live person didn't take off her clothes because she thought it would be a really cool way to showcase her character's personality, but because a screenwriter and production team thought "Now would be a good time for this character to take their clothes off for some reason". The people who take issue with the scene aren't necessarily approaching it from a diegetic standpoint, but rather as a view of an endemic problem that shows up in movies. If the scene has a role to play in the film, which SMG and I say it does, then it doesn't belong lumped in with an endemic pattern of women actors being made to show skin for contrived reasons or questionable excuses. Also scenes like that usually have an element of the camera leering or slowly panning over the woman, and the scene in question couldn't be more opposite in terms of the way it was filmed. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Then let's just go full sexy time. Star Trek 09: 3 - The Naked Generation. Directed by David Cronenberg.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:The problem is that the character is not a real person. That's the major divide there. If she were a real life person and this were a documentary about the real exploits of the actual crew of the real Enterprise, then we'd have an argument for it being a display of her confidence or whatever, but it's also super important to remember that Alice Eve the real live person didn't take off her clothes because she thought it would be a really cool way to showcase her character's personality, but because a screenwriter and production team thought "Now would be a good time for this character to take their clothes off for some reason". The people who take issue with the scene aren't necessarily approaching it from a diegetic standpoint, but rather as a view of an endemic problem that shows up in movies. This seems like the weirdest criticism. You're simultaneously complaining that she's acting like a doll to the male gaze and then turn around and say she shouldn't act like a real person? Are you just saying you want a doll for your particular gaze?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Also scenes like that usually have an element of the camera leering or slowly panning over the woman, and the scene in question couldn't be more opposite in terms of the way it was filmed. (Oh, and please, nobody do the NOT IN my TREK thing where I'm somehow accused of disliking this scene because it breaks with the long tradition of never showing off naked bodies in Star Trek. I'm not saying it's different from Roddenberry giving everyone mini-skirts; I'm saying it's fundamentally all too similar to that.) By a lot of people, the scene was seen as just one of the many scenes it might criticize. Some who liked it that way ("Sexy Alice Eve nude in new Trek film"), some who didn't ("Misogynist Science Fiction: nobody is surprised"; note that this category seemingly includes Lindelof). Something in the way it was filmed makes it easy to be seen that way (what could it be?). And I'm wondering, would it have been possible to make exactly this point by filming it in a way that does not lend itself to the male gaze? Screenshots of the scene easily work as pin-ups. The answer to this question tells you if it is indeed gratuitous. If, and only if, the point could have been made like this, and only like this, then it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:The problem is that the character is not a real person. This makes absolutely no sense at all. Characters emulate real people. A good writer actually develops consistent traits for their characters and finds various ways to reveal these traits. You may not agree with the way her 'confidence' was shown, but it doesn't make the decision to show it in that manner any less valid. Gatts posted:Then let's just go full sexy time. Star Trek 09: 3 - The Naked Generation. Directed by David Cronenberg. Star Trek does feature Risa, a pleasure planet that is not seen as skeevy even by TNG's more conservative standards. I'd love to see the sheer amount of 'outrage' that place would cause if they used it in the next film. Cingulate posted:And I'm wondering, would it have been possible to make exactly this point by filming it in a way that does not lend itself to the male gaze? Screenshots of the scene easily work as pin-ups. Bullshit. "Gratuitous" is a completely subjective measure that can't be quantified by a simplistic rule like... "If you could have done it in any different way then it's obviously gratuitous  "
DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Good idea. Just set the next adventure as Die Hard on Risa. Get Paul Verhoven on the phone...
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Good idea. Just set the next adventure as Die Hard on Risa. Get Paul Verhoven on the phone... This thread has basically become the Risa episode of DS9 where Worf becomes a terrorist because he hates fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Crappy Jack is saying that we're not seeing Alice Eve naked because Alice Eve or Carol Marcus decided to change clothes, but because somebody decided to film Alice Eve in underwear. David Cronenberg's Star Trek III: Into Risa would be the best. Alternatively, David Cronenberg's Threshold.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Crappy Jack is saying that we're not seeing Alice Eve naked because Alice Eve or Carol Marcus decided to change clothes, but because somebody decided to film Alice Eve in underwear. Yes, like with all movies and TV almost every bit you see on screen is there due to a conscious decision on the part of the writers/directors. quote:David Cronenberg's Star Trek III: Into Risa would be the best. Alternatively, David Cronenberg's Threshold. Ew...the Star Trek equivalent of The Human Centipede.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
The SEXY Human Centipede. After a transporter accident, Spock, Kirk, Uhura and Marcus have to deal with a special situation ...
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
Can we just go with the examination of Paris' and Janeway's relationship as lizards and what this says about humanity and nature by Cronenberg?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Can we just go with the examination of Paris' and Janeway's relationship as lizards and what this says about humanity and nature by Cronenberg? Like illuminati lizards or was there an episode of Voyager that I didn't watch (aside from most of them).
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Like illuminati lizards or was there an episode of Voyager that I didn't watch (aside from most of them). Warp 10 causes hyper-evolution. Pretty much one of the worst episodes of Voyager. (Threshold)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
WilliamAnderson posted:Warp 10 causes hyper-evolution. Pretty much one of the best episodes of Voyager. (Threshold)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
My personal opinions about the underwear scene aside, it's kind of hilarious because I've seen people complain about how it's objectifying, etc, in newspapers and online...right next to screenshots specifically taken at the point to show off her body to its fullest extent. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Like illuminati lizards or was there an episode of Voyager that I didn't watch (aside from most of them). Threshold as stated. Paris and Janeway go to warp 10, evolve into lizards, mate a few times and have little lizard babies on a planet, then are taken back and reverted to normal and the babies never mentioned again or the event spoken about again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 17:02
|
|