XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.movies.current-films   
   From: russell-watson@comcast.net   
      
   On 5/23/2013 12:40 PM, Mason Barge wrote:   
   > On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:04:55 -0700 (PDT), moviePig   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On May 23, 7:21 am, Ubiquitous  wrote:   
   >>> By John Horn   
   >>>   
   >>> It’s one of the strangest scenes in “Star Trek Into Darkness”: With no   
   >>> explanation or motivation, USS Enterprise visitor Carol (Alice Eve)   
   >>> strips down to her blue underwear, whereupon James T. Kirk (Chris Pine)   
   >>> sneaks a peek.   
   >>>   
   >>> Now, Damon Lindelof, who co-wrote the film’s screenplay, is apologizing   
   >>> for the gratuitous sequence — sort of.   
   >>>   
   >>> In an email interview with MTV, Lindelof was asked why the “Men in Black   
   >>> III” actress was obligated to show off her ripped body.   
   >>>   
   >>> “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?,” Lindelof wrote.   
   >>>   
   >>> He said there was a scene written for Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) to   
   >>> remove his shirt, but “I don’t think it ever got shot. You know why?   
   >>> Because getting actors to take their clothes off is DEMEANING AND   
   >>> HORRIBLE AND...”   
   >>>   
   >>> Lindelof touted the MTV admission on Twitter, first saying, “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,” and then joking, “We   
   >>> also had Kirk shirtless in underpants in both movies. Do not want to make   
   >>> light of something that some construe as mysogenistic.”   
   >>>   
   >>> He followed that post with an apology for misspelling misogynist and by   
   >>> writing, “What I'm saying is I hear you, I take responsibility and will   
   >>> be more mindful in the future.”   
   >>   
   >> Afaik, there's appreciable difference between misogyny and gratuitous   
   >> sex.   
   >   
   > No kidding.  It may be a very soft-core pr0n but who the hell calls   
   > men wanting to look at women's bodies "misogynistic"?   
   >   
      
   The only thing wrong with that scene was the utter ham-handedness with   
   which it was worked into the plot like something out of a '70s or '80s   
   movie. It was like they meant she was going to be partially clad come   
   hell or high water and ultimately didn't even try to be subtle about it.   
   However, the end result was 15 seconds or so of her in 30' tall hi-def   
   in her underwear, which I thoroughly enjoyed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)