ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Lindelof Tweets Apology to Fans Regarding Alice Eve's Underwear Scene

Report this
Created by: EbonyCHAOS

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 22 2013, 10:33 am

I know, execs still rely on T & A to bring in young males.  But I think they sometimes underestimate male fans.  Look at Gillian Anderson.  She was one of the most strong, smart, buttoned up characters on TV and she is a nerd sex symbol.  The 7 of 9 issue was made even more obvious because she filled a cast spot vacated by the demure Kes (not that I liked Kes, but you know what I mean)


Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the need for sex appeal in any show, male or female. I may or may not have screen captures of my favorite Sons of Anarchy character's ass on my computer. 


  


But the Alice Eve thing was just cartoonishly obvious. It was almost satirical, as if The Onion produced the trailer.  And add to the fact that it was Carol Marcus, a character that was known for brains, and it's more distasteful.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 22 2013, 1:37 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 22 2013, 10:33 am

>

>Look at Gillian Anderson.  She was one of the most strong, smart, buttoned up characters on TV and she is a nerd sex symbol.

>


That surprised me when I first heard about it, if you know what I mean. But I'm glad that the producers/writers of The X Files kept her as a fully professional character without going too far into the realm of inexplicable gratuity. (Unless they did later i don't know -- I sort of stopped watching X Files a few months before they introduced Cary Elwes to the mix. For me, the show was Mulder & Scully and it was a bit hard to reconcile the show being X Files without that pairing at the centre.)


But Gillian Anderson has proven to be a fairly decent actress too especially since taking on some Dickensian roles recently in Bleak House and Great Expectations. Not great -- her performance does come across as a little awkward at times -- but reasonably versatile.


If there was a reason why Carol Marcus had to strip in that scene (which perhaps I missed), then I might even halfway accept it. It's not so much the amount of covering that is a problem -- I'm not some prude, and have no issues whatever with Jennifer future-Sisko's bikini in DS9's pilot episode -- but the fact that there seemed to be so little reasoning behind it.


(Ben Sisko's bathing suit... that's another story -- 1920s spandex nightmare it was.)


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 22 2013, 1:49 pm

It is all about context.  I'm the first one to admit that I turned into a pervbot when Picard donned his itty bitty suit in Captain's Holiday and also, shamefully, during Chain of Command. (don't judge me! lol) But as you said with Jennifer, there was a valid reason.   (omg, Sisko's suit! LOL!)


Yeah but if you want to talk about awkward, ENT is so guilty of that. I mean come on now...Every.Single.Decontamination.Scene. (which honestly made me uncomfortable to watch because I feel like I would NOT want my commanding officer rubbing jelly on me in my underwear. even if it was Scott Bakula)


So I agree.  It was seriously just an excuse to get Alice Eve into her underwear.  I actually feel sorry for Alice Eve a little because she must not be thrilled to be a the center of this kind of attention.  I doubt she expected that scene to be played in every single clip, preview and trailer.

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this May. 22 2013, 2:40 pm

No. I don't think you're sorry. Not one, damn bit.


This apology isn't for anything other than
to draw more attention that there's T&A in
the movie. It's so stupid that this sort of
thing even gets any kind of hype. Because,
as far as I'm concerned, Alice Eve's gratuitous
nudity in STAR TREK ... is cool. If you got it,
Alice, baby ... FLAUNT it!!! ... WooHOO!!!


AtoZ2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1297

Report this May. 22 2013, 4:10 pm

Really my fanzoids delinquents...It's no different than the scantily clad women that have appeared before on the series.


Actually it's long over due that some one have the balls to show tities and butts on Star Trek...you know they exist, even if many of you have never seen them in real life.


And where the heck are those space bathrooms!


Don't tell me the crew is still holding it in on those long multi year missions (which might explain TNG)


 

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this May. 23 2013, 8:51 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 22 2013, 6:33 am

>

>But like the racist whitewashing of Khan, because something has alway been practiced in the past, doesn't mean it's okay to ignore it in the present. 

>


 


*SPOILERS*


 


That's a very interesting sentiment there, and frankly, I have to disagree with your assumption.  Is it racist if they simply picked the best actor for the job, regardless of his skin color?  Is it equally racist that they replaced a Jewish actor (Nimoy) with a non-Jewish actor (Quinto)?  Is it equally racist if they took a strong black-female role and reduced her importance to stock love-interest?


Don't get me wrong, I think there are plenty of instances of racist whitewashing in Hollywood, along with many other travesties that snub minorities in favor of bigger box office payouts.  In this day and age, one would hope that such things were beginning to fade from the public's mindset, but every year, there are examples of exactly what you suggest.  I just don't think that's what is happening here with Khan.  Ricardo Montalban was a latino, but his parents were Spanish immigrants, so his skin color was basically "white", making your statement about whitewashing a little off.  If you want to talk about removing a latino from the role, regardless of skin color, and replacing him with a British actor as racist, there would be less argument from me about the injustice of changing a character.  Even then, I'm not sure it could be specifically identified as racist given the large number of sweeping changes made to the Star Trek Universe in these last two movies.  If this was the only change, I'd likely agree with you, but I think Kahn's latino-actor heritage was most likely a casualty to carelessness, if anything.  


I still think they simply picked the best actor who auditioned for the role, and unless skin-color was a qualifier for auditioning (which we cannot prove one way or another), is inherently un-racist.


*****


As to the underwear scene, I think it was gratuitous, but I cannot argue that such antics haven't been prevalent for a long time.  I recently watched the TNG episode Justice, and that was nothing but gratuitousness for almost 45 minutes. I think Gene's vision of the future certainly included a hefty dose of the "free-love" movement.  The underwear scenes in both of the new films do nothing but cement that.  I thought they were unnecessary, but there's probably an executive at Paramount somewhere that thinks the films won't sell as well unless there's an appeal to the teenage-male crowd.  I don't know that they're wrong, but I can certainly handle a sci-fi film without underwear flashing on the screen.  As mentioned by another poster, it's no worse than a two-piece swimsuit, and while I wouldn't care to have that in the movie, either, it at least was kept to a minimum.


 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 23 2013, 9:11 am

Quote:

 Ricardo Montalban was a latino, but his parents were Spanish immigrants, so his skin color was basically "white", making your statement about whitewashing a little off.  If you want to talk about removing a latino from the role, regardless of skin color, and replacing him with a British actor as racist, there would be less argument from me about the injustice of changing a character.  Even then, I'm not sure it could be specifically identified as racist given the large number of sweeping changes made to the Star Trek Universe in these last two movies.  If this was the only change, I'd likely agree with you, but I think Kahn's latino-actor heritage was most likely a casualty to carelessness, if anything.


Ricardo Montalban identified as Latino, not white and was subject to discrimination because of it. He started the Nosotros foundation, which supported Latino artists.  In 1967 casting a POC in ANY role was considered a victory. Although it wasn't perfect casting, it was the best they could do at the time.  


KHAN himself was Indian. He was depicted wearing a kurta, shown in a painting with a dastar, mentioned to be from northern India, and nothing about his ethnicity would have changed due to the timeline change. 


 


Quote:

I still think they simply picked the best actor who auditioned for the role, and unless skin-color was a qualifier for auditioning (which we cannot prove one way or another), is inherently un-racist.


Apparently they never even considered Desi actors.  The went from Latino to white.


Perhaps you should read up on the subject here: http://www.racebending.com/v4/featured/star-trek-whiteness/


and  here:


http://io9.com/5907467/the-real-problem-with-benedict-cumberbatchs-villain-role-in-star-trek-12


Before you defend Abrams racist whitewashing.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this May. 23 2013, 11:20 am

Several things to reply to here.  First off, using blogs as your backup (which both io9 and racebending are) is a really bad idea, simply because anyone can write anything on a blog.  Neither of those entries quote any relevant sources that suggest the producers of the films did not consider non-white actors for the role.  If you can find me the actual casting-calls that describe the requirements for the auditions, I'd be happy to concede the point.  


Secondly, Montalban was ethnically Latino while being racially white.  Given that, the choice of actor was not a case of whitewashing.  The racebending entry calls him Montalban a "brown skinned man", and that's simply not correct.  One only needs to see pictures of him outside of the role to understand that he had a tan for the role, but he is racially white.  So the choice of actor is not a case of whitewashing.  


Now, if we're speaking strictly of the character of Khan, I have no disagreement with you that the character has been whitewashed, except that I see it as starting from the beginning.  Picking a white man with a Latino heritage and accent, which certainly was an admirable step for the period in which the original was filmed, is still not true to the character as written.  If you wanted to suggest that the role has been further whitewashed by the storytelling obscurity of his background in the new film, I could agree with that to some extent.  However, there would still be no evidence that such a thing was done for racist reasons outside of conjecture.  The specific inclusion or removal of race-related content suggests nothing in and of itself about the intent of the authors.  Given that one of the writers of STID is of Jewish heritage and the other of Latino heritage, I think you'd have a hard time making that argument.


However, it still all comes down to one thing: none of us know what the criteria was for the casting of the role.  If only white people were considered, then it's racist, regardless of the final choice.  If people of all color were considered, and Cumberbatch was chosen because he had the best performance, it's not racist.  People forget that racism is present whenever race is a deciding factor in the decision-making process; if it's absent (which the outcome neither confirms nor denies), then there is no racism present.


I have not seen anything that suggests racism was present in the casting decision for Khan, nor in the obfuscation of his cultural heritage in the writing.  I think, like many aspects of these new Trek films, the character was simplified and removed from its "Trekkie" past to make him more accessable to newer fans who have no prior knowledge of Khan walking into the theater.  


Is it a missed opportunity to enlighten younger viewers to the cultural diversity present in the world?  Yes.


Is it overt (or subversive) racism?  Highly unlikely.

Gawain_VIII

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 191

Report this May. 23 2013, 12:54 pm

What was he apologizing for? I mean... she's a beautiful, young woman.  Sci-fi, on the whole, is typically targeted toward younger males.  It's not sexist--it's economics!  The only thing that should have been different is instad of a black bikini, they should have used bright strategically placed silk scarves in bright primary colors a la Bill Theiss.


ROBERT CHARLES GRAHAM, Vice Admiral
U.S.S Gawain NCC-91980
Commanding Officer, Frontier Fleet
sto-frontier-fleet.proboards.com

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 23 2013, 3:10 pm

How about we try to move forward with our sexist thinking and not have to strip every single woman down to her skivvies so JJ gets his childish rocks off?


 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 23 2013, 3:21 pm

This board can bite my @$$ for eating my long reply.  Seriously, board? SERIOUSLY!?

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 23 2013, 9:29 pm

[quote]


What was he apologizing for? I mean... she's a beautiful, young woman.  Sci-fi, on the whole, is typically targeted toward younger males.  It's not sexist--it's economics!  The only thing that should have been different is instad of a black bikini, they should have used bright strategically placed silk scarves in bright primary colors a la Bill Theiss.


[/quote]


Yeah, some of those costumes are pretty nuts. Let us evaluate the history of women in Trek:


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/SHI8P0HeUMI/AAAAAAAABvw/rq4IdSyGDgo/s400/P13_7_YvonneCraigMarta.jpg


http://vampjac.com/lj/pulchritude/2008/Trek_TOS/TOS_Sherry_Jackson.jpg


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Now, I certainly will not say that Abrams has presented women in scantily clad garb and is somehow not offensive to me. Its just not new to the film industry, including Star Trek. In addition, a reposting of an article on a Trek blog discussing sexism in TOS: http://startrekdom.blogspot.com/2007/08/sexism-and-feminism-in-star-trek.html


Also, Abrams is now on the record stating that the scene with Eve was designed to show Kirk's womanizing tendencies, and that he may have edited that shot wrong. He also states that he included a shot of shirtless Kirk and took out a scene of Harrison showering. Story here: http://www.startrek.com/article/abrams-unveils-cumberbatch-shower-scene-on-conan

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 25 2013, 7:16 am

Gratuitous means Uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted. 


Which is what everyone is saying about the scene. Not that it was offensive, but it was lacking of good reason.  


If you think about the Orion girl in 2009, the shot of her in her underwear made sense because she was in  her room and in the middle of a romantic encounter.


I don't think anyone really has a problem with a woman in her underwear, it's the fact that it was clumsily added.  You can almost hear Beavis and Butthead laughing "Heh...heh heh...bewbs".


It would apply equally to a male. Captain Picard in an itty bitty bikini on Risa? Sure, makes sense.  Captain Picard roaming the halls of the Enterprise? Not so much.


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 25 2013, 7:46 am

I think gratuitous describes most of Trek's wardrobe designs, at least to my view. I would use that term for Seven of Nine's and T'Pol's wadrobe too


Also, we got Tucker roaming the halls in his underwear on Enterprise for a while in an episode, so while not Picard, it did happen.


Honestly, I found the marketing of Black Widow more sexist, gratuitous, and childish.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 25 2013, 8:00 am

We addressed T'Pol and Seven earlier in the thread. Trip was sort of in context, since he was in decomm (which always presented a gratuitous problem of itself).  No one is denying that it's existed before and no one is saying that all women in Star Trek should be dressed like nuns all the time.


And again, because it was done before, no one says we shouldn't improve.  And many, many an article were written about Black Widow's marketing.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/avengers-movie-poster-sexist_n_1507914.html


Young women today, many of them under 25, won't stand for gratuitous sexism the way previous generations have. Especially as obvious as this was.  I half expected Movie Voice Over Guy to say "See Alice Eve in her space underwear" during the trailer.  One of my favorite female heros of all time is known for her underwear scene, but at least Sigourney Weaver stripping made SOME sort of sense, even though the crotch shot was pushing it, because it was a plot device as she was getting ready for hypersleep and to leave her more vunerablel when the alien was found.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum