by Rebecca Pahle | 5:00 pm, May 23rd, 2013
Because teenagerdom is a mess, but some people handle it better than others.
by Rebecca Pahle | 5:00 pm, May 23rd, 2013
by Susana Polo | 11:48 am, May 23rd, 2013
On Conan O’Brien last night J.J. Abrams was asked about the recent controversy over a moment of contrived near-nudity in Star Trek Into Darkness. And I actually respect Abrams’ response: he says that his intention was to do a quick joke in the midst of a bunch of action, but says “I don’t think I quite edited the scene in the right way,” and of those that felt the scene was exploitative “I can also see their point of view.” There are ways that the scene could have been directed or edited in a way that actually made it appear that Carol Marcus’ reaction to Kirk being a supercreep shamed or cowed him in, well, any way. If Abrams felt this scene was really the “balance” to a brief scene of Kirk post-coitus with two alien women, where his nudity before the opposite sex is a product of his sexual prowess, not something that he has just expressed a clear desire to avoid, I just wish he’d executed that better.
Abrams also shared a few seconds of Benedict Cumberbatch‘s character taking a shower, which was not included in the final cut of the movie. And since Cumberbatch is kind of a rising nerd property now (particularly among women), that clip is getting spread around quite widely, touted as the end to the argument. And I’d like to, just for a moment, talk about what this clip isn’t: it isn’t evidence that men and women’s bodies are treated equally in the movie.READ MORE
by Jill Pantozzi | 11:23 am, May 21st, 2013
“I copped to the fact that we should have done a better job of not being gratuitous in our representation of a barely clothed actress. We also had Kirk shirtless in underpants in both movies. Do not want to make light of something that some construe as mysogenistic. What I’m saying is I hear you, I take responsibility and will be more mindful in the future. Also, I need to learn how to spell ‘misogynistic.’” - Star Trek Into Darkness writer Damon Lindelof in a string of four tweets sent out roughly a half hour after we posted his lackluster answer as to why actress Alice Eve was made to strip down in the film for no reason.
It’s nice to see Lindelof comment on the complaints at all, and we hope he really is more mindful of these types of things in the future but we must point out – having half naked actors in a sex scene does not equal the treatment Eve received. Again, it’s all about context and Dr. Carol Marcus was put on display with none. What do you think of Lindelof’s apology?
(via tipster commenter Eric)
by Susana Polo | 5:03 pm, May 20th, 2013
by Jill Pantozzi | 4:35 pm, May 20th, 2013
“Why is Alice Eve in her underwear, gratuitously and unnecessarily, without any real effort made as to why in God’s name she would undress in that circumstance? Well there’s a very good answer for that. But I’m not telling you what it is. Because… uh… MYSTERY?” - Star Trek Into Darkness writer Damon Lindelof writing probably the most idiotic thing he could write in a letter to MTV.
They had asked, “I feel like I have to start with the biggest mystery/conversation that’s surrounded the film from the get go. Why is Alice Eve in her underwear at one point?”
Because, well, that is an incredibly relavent question to ask.
I mentioned it briefly in my non-TMS review but really, I could have gone on for pages about it. Eve’s character of Dr. Carol Marcus was touted to have incredible intelligence, though instead of allowing her to use it to effect the plot, she was used as the most blatant eye-candy I’ve seen in a long time. We see this kind of thing a lot in Hollywood, sure, but the scene in question was akin to an actor holding up and verbally speaking the name of a can of Coca-Cola during a scene about cats or general surgery. And for a writer to respond to serious criticism in such a flippant manner is disappointing to say the least. Not to mention what he said when asked about a rumored shirtless scene for Benedict Cumberbatch’s character:READ MORE
by Zoe Chevat | 11:03 am, May 20th, 2013
Into Darkness, that colon-less second installment of New Trek kicking off the summer season is a lot of things, including plentifully humorous, bombastic, well-designed, and confused about its purpose. Like the villain that menaced us from all those teaser posters, Into Darkness makes us wonder what, ultimately, it’s up to. Identity is a key factor to wonder about as, two movies in, even casual Trekkie patience is worn thin by a stream of visual and idealistic incursions that belong to other films. Make no mistake; Into Darkness is a good popcorn-crunching experience, swift on its feet and full of action and jokes. It’s just not, like its predecessor, much of a Star Trek film.
Ensign, take us to SPOILERS.READ MORE
by Jill Pantozzi | 5:30 pm, May 18th, 2013
by Jill Pantozzi | 5:00 pm, May 17th, 2013
by Jill Pantozzi | 1:15 pm, May 17th, 2013
This kind of thing needs to happen more often. I just have one tiny qualm with it, the fact that they used “where no man has gone” versus “no one.” I mean, come on, if you’re going to reference J.J. Abrams and use a Kindle, you’re not sticking that close to classic Trek.
(via Blastr)READ MORE
by Susana Polo | 10:15 am, May 17th, 2013
While some of these are humorously ironic (Captain America: The First Avenger), kind of adorable (The Avengers), some of these titles are just so completely nonsensical that seeing them dressed up in serious font with serious images is outright hilarious.READ MORE