Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Alice Eve lingerie in 'Star Trek' might be misogynistic, writer says
27 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
May 23, 2013, 7:21:46 AM5/23/13
to
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.�
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.�
Edward McArdle
May 23, 2013, 8:08:54 AM5/23/13
to
1. This is 300 years in the future. People don't worry about being caught
in their underwear?
2. Kirk is the captain. He can burst into anyone's cabin and catch them
off guard? Spock is always annoyed about this. Or would be if he got
annoyed.
3. Er...
--
Edward McArdle
Michael Black
May 23, 2013, 9:34:05 AM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Edward McArdle wrote:
> 1. This is 300 years in the future. People don't worry about being caught
> in their underwear?
>
Since they wear clothes, I don't think so. If it was a world where nudity
> 1. This is 300 years in the future. People don't worry about being caught
> in their underwear?
>
was really common, then yes it wouldn't matter.
Clearly, they wanted to show off the futuristic lingerie. Or at least
what the women wear under their uniforms.
I thought the shirts on the original were once piece, they looked just
like my pyjamas at the time, one color aand then a darker color at the
collar. But then there was an episode where the Captain was in sick bay,
and he had the top layer off, revealing another shirt, clearly where the
"darker collar" came from.
> 2. Kirk is the captain. He can burst into anyone's cabin and catch them
> off guard? Spock is always annoyed about this. Or would be if he got
> annoyed.
>
domain?
Michael
anim8rFSK
May 23, 2013, 10:07:57 AM5/23/13
to
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
as well. The only time I can recall the collar being part of the
undershirt was Spock's outfit in TMP, but that was non regulation.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013, Edward McArdle wrote:
>
> > 1. This is 300 years in the future. People don't worry about being caught
> > in their underwear?
> >
> Since they wear clothes, I don't think so. If it was a world where nudity
> was really common, then yes it wouldn't matter.
>
> Clearly, they wanted to show off the futuristic lingerie. Or at least
> what the women wear under their uniforms.
>
> I thought the shirts on the original were once piece, they looked just
> like my pyjamas at the time, one color aand then a darker color at the
> collar. But then there was an episode where the Captain was in sick bay,
> and he had the top layer off, revealing another shirt, clearly where the
> "darker collar" came from.
No, the collar is part of the overshirt, but there's a black undershirt
> On Thu, 23 May 2013, Edward McArdle wrote:
>
> > 1. This is 300 years in the future. People don't worry about being caught
> > in their underwear?
> >
> Since they wear clothes, I don't think so. If it was a world where nudity
> was really common, then yes it wouldn't matter.
>
> Clearly, they wanted to show off the futuristic lingerie. Or at least
> what the women wear under their uniforms.
>
> I thought the shirts on the original were once piece, they looked just
> like my pyjamas at the time, one color aand then a darker color at the
> collar. But then there was an episode where the Captain was in sick bay,
> and he had the top layer off, revealing another shirt, clearly where the
> "darker collar" came from.
as well. The only time I can recall the collar being part of the
undershirt was Spock's outfit in TMP, but that was non regulation.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
BTR1701
May 23, 2013, 10:13:52 AM5/23/13
to
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> 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.
> 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
>
> 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."
Oh, please. No apology needed. We need to see more of Carol Marcus, not
> 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."
less!
moviePig
May 23, 2013, 11:04:55 AM5/23/13
to
Afaik, there's appreciable difference between misogyny and gratuitous
sex.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Mason Barge
May 23, 2013, 12:40:23 PM5/23/13
to
men wanting to look at women's bodies "misogynistic"?
Russell Watson
May 23, 2013, 12:55:18 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 12:40 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:04:55 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
> <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 23, 7:21 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> By John Horn
>>>
>>> It�s one of the strangest scenes in �Star Trek Into Darkness�: With no
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:04:55 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
> <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 23, 7:21 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> By John Horn
>>>
>>> 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
>>> strips down to her blue underwear, whereupon James T. Kirk (Chris Pine)
>>> sneaks a peek.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> that circumstance? Well, there's a very good answer for that. But I'm not
>>>
>>> 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?
>>> He said there was a scene written for Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) to
>>> 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
>>> He followed that post with an apology for misspelling misogynist and by
>>> 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
>> 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"?
>
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.
Merrick Baldelli
May 23, 2013, 12:57:22 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:40:23 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>No kidding. It may be a very soft-core pr0n but who the hell calls
>men wanting to look at women's bodies "misogynistic"?
You're kidding right? This is rhetorical in spite of the
existence of frothing feminists that call all forms of sex, "rape"?
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
wrote:
>No kidding. It may be a very soft-core pr0n but who the hell calls
>men wanting to look at women's bodies "misogynistic"?
existence of frothing feminists that call all forms of sex, "rape"?
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
RichA
May 23, 2013, 3:13:09 PM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 7:21 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> 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?
In the liberal progressive universe, only queer men and asexual women
>
> 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?
would exist.
Ed Stasiak
May 23, 2013, 3:31:26 PM5/23/13
to
> Mason Barge
acceptable for a woman to accuse a man of rape in the morning,
even though she consented to sex the night before, because she
now regrets her decision to have had sex with the guy.
>
> who the hell calls men wanting to look at women's bodies "misogynistic"?
The same fat ugly lesbian feminists who claim that it's perfectly
> who the hell calls men wanting to look at women's bodies "misogynistic"?
acceptable for a woman to accuse a man of rape in the morning,
even though she consented to sex the night before, because she
now regrets her decision to have had sex with the guy.
nick
May 23, 2013, 6:34:00 PM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 8:08 am, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
What a strange bunch the people of the future are. They're okay with
inter-species sex but get prudish when they're changing their
clothes.
inter-species sex but get prudish when they're changing their
clothes.
Michael Black
May 23, 2013, 6:54:29 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013, RichA wrote:
>> ?Why is Alice Eve in her underwear, gratuitously and unnecessarily,
secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women enjoy women.
This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet Earth", where
John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth where women dominate,
though I don't think it spelled out lesbian directly.
Suzy McKee Charnas wrote about this future in "Motherlines" and "Walk to
the End of the Earth" in the early seventies, a clear extensino of lesbian
separatism going on at the time.
Michael
>> ?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?
>
> In the liberal progressive universe, only queer men and asexual women
> would exist.
>
No, the future has a society dominated by women, with men having a minor
>> that circumstance?
>
> In the liberal progressive universe, only queer men and asexual women
> would exist.
>
secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women enjoy women.
This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet Earth", where
John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth where women dominate,
though I don't think it spelled out lesbian directly.
Suzy McKee Charnas wrote about this future in "Motherlines" and "Walk to
the End of the Earth" in the early seventies, a clear extensino of lesbian
separatism going on at the time.
Michael
William December Starr
May 24, 2013, 12:17:47 AM5/24/13
to
In article <75b1157d-912d-4b66...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
-- wds
nick <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> said:
> What a strange bunch the people of the future are. They're okay
> with inter-species sex but get prudish when they're changing their
> clothes.
What's strange about that?
> What a strange bunch the people of the future are. They're okay
> with inter-species sex but get prudish when they're changing their
> clothes.
-- wds
William December Starr
May 24, 2013, 12:20:13 AM5/24/13
to
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
-- wds
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> said:
> No, the future has a society dominated by women, with men having a
> minor secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women
> enjoy women.
>
> This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet
> Earth", where John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth
> where women dominate, though I don't think it spelled out lesbian
> directly.
I'm not sure it/Gene Roddenberry even suggested it indirectly.
> No, the future has a society dominated by women, with men having a
> minor secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women
> enjoy women.
>
> This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet
> Earth", where John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth
> where women dominate, though I don't think it spelled out lesbian
> directly.
-- wds
Michael Black
May 24, 2013, 2:10:32 AM5/24/13
to
a world with women in control, and men virtually doing nothing.
No, for the record, I don't think lesbians were even hinted at in "Planet
Earth".
After all I recall Janeet Margolin and Diana Muldaur getting into an
argument, even if Janet rather liked the idea of John Saxon as her "dink".
Michael
The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help
May 24, 2013, 10:08:07 AM5/24/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:34:05 -0400, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca>
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 May 2013, Edward McArdle wrote:
>
>> 1. This is 300 years in the future. People don't worry about being caught
>> in their underwear?
>>
>Since they wear clothes, I don't think so. If it was a world where nudity
>was really common, then yes it wouldn' t matter.
In space, no one can hear you blush...
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 May 2013, Edward McArdle wrote:
>
>> 1. This is 300 years in the future. People don't worry about being caught
>> in their underwear?
>>
>Since they wear clothes, I don't think so. If it was a world where nudity
>was really common, then yes it wouldn' t matter.
Adam H. Kerman
May 24, 2013, 10:16:35 AM5/24/13
to
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 May 2013, Edward McArdle wrote:
>>1. This is 300 years in the future. People don't worry about being caught
>>in their underwear?
>Since they wear clothes, I don't think so. If it was a world where nudity
>was really common, then yes it wouldn't matter.
If nudity were really common, wouldn't wearing any clothing be kinky or risque?
>On Thu, 23 May 2013, Edward McArdle wrote:
>>1. This is 300 years in the future. People don't worry about being caught
>>in their underwear?
>Since they wear clothes, I don't think so. If it was a world where nudity
>was really common, then yes it wouldn't matter.
anim8rFSK
May 24, 2013, 10:23:27 AM5/24/13
to
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
captured the men for sex slaves.
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013, RichA wrote:
>
> >> ?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?
> >
> > In the liberal progressive universe, only queer men and asexual women
> > would exist.
> >
> No, the future has a society dominated by women, with men having a minor
> secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women enjoy women.
>
> This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet Earth", where
> John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth where women dominate,
> though I don't think it spelled out lesbian directly.
Not only did they not spell it out, it was the exact opposite; the women
> On Thu, 23 May 2013, RichA wrote:
>
> >> ?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?
> >
> > In the liberal progressive universe, only queer men and asexual women
> > would exist.
> >
> No, the future has a society dominated by women, with men having a minor
> secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women enjoy women.
>
> This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet Earth", where
> John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth where women dominate,
> though I don't think it spelled out lesbian directly.
captured the men for sex slaves.
anim8rFSK
May 24, 2013, 10:24:04 AM5/24/13
to
anim8rFSK
May 24, 2013, 10:24:20 AM5/24/13
to
anim8rFSK
May 24, 2013, 10:24:37 AM5/24/13
to
Mason Barge
May 24, 2013, 1:18:52 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:24:20 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
I can remember a house at Smith that only allowed "wimmin" to enter.
The occupants could not even own a male dog or cat.
wrote:
The occupants could not even own a male dog or cat.
Jim G.
May 24, 2013, 1:14:07 PM5/24/13
to
Ubiquitous sent the following on 5/23/2013 6:21 AM:
> By John Horn
>
> It�s one of the strangest scenes in �Star Trek Into Darkness�: With no
>
> �Why is Alice Eve in her underwear, gratuitously and unnecessarily,
>
> Lindelof touted the MTV admission on Twitter, first saying, �I copped to
> be more mindful in the future.�
Damn, there's no shortage of oversensitive twits in the world, is there?
And in addition to not knowing (initially) how to *spell*
"misogynistic," Lindelof is also pretty much clueless of what it means.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to handle
stress." -- Norma Bates, BATES MOTEL
> 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.
>
> 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.
> for the gratuitous sequence � sort of.
>
> In an email interview with MTV, Lindelof was asked why the �Men in Black
>
> �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.
> that circumstance? Well, there's a very good answer for that. But I'm not
>
> 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?
> He said there was a scene written for Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) to
> 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
> He followed that post with an apology for misspelling misogynist and by
> be more mindful in the future.�
Damn, there's no shortage of oversensitive twits in the world, is there?
And in addition to not knowing (initially) how to *spell*
"misogynistic," Lindelof is also pretty much clueless of what it means.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to handle
stress." -- Norma Bates, BATES MOTEL
Jim G.
May 24, 2013, 1:14:32 PM5/24/13
to
BTR1701 sent the following on 5/23/2013 9:13 AM:
When I see a buff guy shirtless in a scene in a show or a movie, I know
what's going on, but I don't get all offended by it or cry foul. And I
certainly don't accuse the writers and director of "hating" men. When
are feminists and their overly sensitive pals gonna learn to stop
bitching about this sort of thing?
Laugh at it? That's fair. Make fun of it? That's understandable. But be
*offended* by it, or accuse someone of "hating"? Ridiculous.
what's going on, but I don't get all offended by it or cry foul. And I
certainly don't accuse the writers and director of "hating" men. When
are feminists and their overly sensitive pals gonna learn to stop
bitching about this sort of thing?
Laugh at it? That's fair. Make fun of it? That's understandable. But be
*offended* by it, or accuse someone of "hating"? Ridiculous.
Jim G.
May 24, 2013, 1:14:46 PM5/24/13
to
moviePig sent the following on 5/23/2013 10:04 AM:
>> It�s one of the strangest scenes in �Star Trek Into Darkness�: With no
>>
>> �Why is Alice Eve in her underwear, gratuitously and unnecessarily,
>>
>> Lindelof touted the MTV admission on Twitter, first saying, �I copped to
>> be more mindful in the future.�
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>> for the gratuitous sequence � sort of.
>>
>> In an email interview with MTV, Lindelof was asked why the �Men in Black
>>
>> �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.
>> that circumstance? Well, there's a very good answer for that. But I'm not
>>
>> 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?
>> He said there was a scene written for Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) to
>> 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
>> He followed that post with an apology for misspelling misogynist and by
>> be more mindful in the future.�
>
> Afaik, there's appreciable difference between misogyny and gratuitous
> sex.
If you're doing it right, at least. :)
> Afaik, there's appreciable difference between misogyny and gratuitous
> sex.
Jim G.
May 24, 2013, 1:15:00 PM5/24/13
to
Ed Stasiak sent the following on 5/23/2013 2:31 PM:
Any guy who'd sleep with a fat ugly lesbian feminist deserves all of the
grief that might result from that very poor decision. :)
grief that might result from that very poor decision. :)
anim8rFSK
May 24, 2013, 1:30:44 PM5/24/13
to
BTR1701
May 24, 2013, 9:44:13 PM5/24/13
to
In article <kno77p$dum$2...@dont-email.me>,
It's the way things are these days. You're instantly accused of 'hate'
the moment you disagree with someone's agenda.
the moment you disagree with someone's agenda.
moviePig
May 24, 2013, 9:47:49 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 9:44 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <kno77p$dum...@dont-email.me>,
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
> In article <kno77p$dum...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jim G." <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > BTR1701 sent the following on 5/23/2013 9:13 AM:
> > > In article <knktsj$c0...@dont-email.me>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > BTR1701 sent the following on 5/23/2013 9:13 AM:
BTR1701
May 24, 2013, 9:49:14 PM5/24/13
to
> Ubiquitous sent the following on 5/23/2013 6:21 AM:
> > By John Horn
> >
> > Itąs one of the strangest scenes in łStar Trek Into Darkness˛: With no
> > By John Horn
> >
> > 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 filmąs screenplay, is apologizing
> > strips down to her blue underwear, whereupon James T. Kirk (Chris Pine)
> > sneaks a peek.
> >
> > for the gratuitous sequence ‹ sort of.
> >
> > In an email interview with MTV, Lindelof was asked why the łMen in Black
> > III˛ actress was obligated to show off her ripped body.
> >
> > łWhy 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.
> > that circumstance? Well, there's a very good answer for that. But I'm not
> >
> > He said there was a scene written for Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) to
> > remove his shirt, but łI donąt think it ever got shot. You know why?
> > He said there was a scene written for Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) to
> > Because getting actors to take their clothes off is DEMEANING AND
> > HORRIBLE AND...˛
> >
> > Lindelof touted the MTV admission on Twitter, first saying, łI 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, łWe
> > 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, łWhat I'm saying is I hear you, I take responsibility and will
> > He followed that post with an apology for misspelling misogynist and by
> > be more mindful in the future.˛
>
> Damn, there's no shortage of oversensitive twits in the world, is there?
And people who bend over backward to grovel before them and appease them.
> Damn, there's no shortage of oversensitive twits in the world, is there?
If it were me, I'd have just ignored the whiners, but if I responded at
all, I'd have been like, "Hey, she's a beautiful girl. Maybe we could
have done a little better working the scene into the story, but have you
*seen* her? No way that was ending up on the cutting room floor."
And then sat back and watched the feminists' heads explode.
BTR1701
May 24, 2013, 9:51:03 PM5/24/13
to
JRStern
May 24, 2013, 10:35:52 PM5/24/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:21:46 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
surprise?
J.
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.
The title of the movie is "Into Darkness", so exactly why is this a
>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.
surprise?
J.
Adam H. Kerman
May 24, 2013, 11:11:41 PM5/24/13
to
trotsky
May 25, 2013, 7:44:49 AM5/25/13
to
On 5/24/13 10:11 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Lust Is My Agenda would make a good T-shirt.
Especially for teabaggers.
> Lust Is My Agenda would make a good T-shirt.
--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.
Mason Barge
May 25, 2013, 8:52:32 AM5/25/13
to
Mason Barge
May 25, 2013, 8:53:51 AM5/25/13
to
RichA
May 25, 2013, 12:03:16 PM5/25/13
to
On May 23, 3:54 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013, RichA wrote:
> >> ?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?
>
> > In the liberal progressive universe, only queer men and asexual women
> > would exist.
>
> No, the future has a society dominated by women, with men having a minor
> secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women enjoy women.
>
> This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet Earth", where
> John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth where women dominate,
> though I don't think it spelled out lesbian directly.
Not in the 1970's on TV they didn't. There was a scifi novel written
> On Thu, 23 May 2013, RichA wrote:
> >> ?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?
>
> > In the liberal progressive universe, only queer men and asexual women
> > would exist.
>
> No, the future has a society dominated by women, with men having a minor
> secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women enjoy women.
>
> This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet Earth", where
> John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth where women dominate,
> though I don't think it spelled out lesbian directly.
about this in the 70's, but women in it learned to like men. Can't
remember the name.
RichA
May 25, 2013, 12:04:14 PM5/25/13
to
On May 23, 11:10 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013, William December Starr wrote:
> > In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1305231845510.2...@darkstar.example.org>,
> On Fri, 24 May 2013, William December Starr wrote:
> > Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> said:
>
> >> No, the future has a society dominated by women, with men having a
> >> minor secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women
> >> enjoy women.
>
> >> This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet
> >> Earth", where John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth
> >> where women dominate, though I don't think it spelled out lesbian
> >> directly.
>
> > I'm not sure it/Gene Roddenberry even suggested it indirectly.
>
> Remember, I was replying to Rich, and likely his worst nightmare would be
> a world with women in control, and men virtually doing nothing.
>
They have that now, it's called a U.S. ghetto. The women work, the
>
> >> No, the future has a society dominated by women, with men having a
> >> minor secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women
> >> enjoy women.
>
> >> This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet
> >> Earth", where John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth
> >> where women dominate, though I don't think it spelled out lesbian
> >> directly.
>
> > I'm not sure it/Gene Roddenberry even suggested it indirectly.
>
> Remember, I was replying to Rich, and likely his worst nightmare would be
> a world with women in control, and men virtually doing nothing.
>
men sit around on porches all day drinking and doing drugs.
AC
May 26, 2013, 7:02:04 AM5/26/13
to
RichA wrote:
>> It�s one of the strangest scenes in �Star Trek Into Darkness�: With no
>>
>> �Why is Alice Eve in her underwear, gratuitously and unnecessarily,
--
AC
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>> for the gratuitous sequence � sort of.
>>
>> In an email interview with MTV, Lindelof was asked why the �Men in Black
>>
>> �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?
>
> In the liberal progressive universe, only queer men and asexual women
> would exist.
>
You'll be OK then.
>> that circumstance?
>
> In the liberal progressive universe, only queer men and asexual women
> would exist.
>
--
AC
AC
May 26, 2013, 7:04:02 AM5/26/13
to
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
> 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?
> He said there was a scene written for Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) to
> 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
> He followed that post with an apology for misspelling misogynist and by
> be more mindful in the future.�
>
>
Yeah, just write the script better to justify the tart in undies.
--
AC
1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 26, 2013, 11:24:30 AM5/26/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 06:44:49 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 5/24/13 10:11 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> Lust Is My Agenda would make a good T-shirt.
>
>
>Especially for teabaggers.
That non-sequitur makes even less sense than anything else you post,
>On 5/24/13 10:11 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> Lust Is My Agenda would make a good T-shirt.
>
>
>Especially for teabaggers.
Trots. Keep up the good work!
1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 26, 2013, 11:27:31 AM5/26/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:24:37 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>In article
><a780bf74-de94-43f7...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> > Mason Barge
>> >
>> > who the hell calls men wanting to look at women's bodies "misogynistic"?
>>
>> The same fat ugly lesbian feminists who claim that it's perfectly
>> acceptable for a woman to accuse a man of rape in the morning,
>> even though she consented to sex the night before, because she
>> now regrets her decision to have had sex with the guy.
>
>So, Clodreamer, then?
A woman who does that evil a deed deserves consequences at least as
severe as those due an actual rapist.
wrote:
>In article
><a780bf74-de94-43f7...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> > Mason Barge
>> >
>> > who the hell calls men wanting to look at women's bodies "misogynistic"?
>>
>> The same fat ugly lesbian feminists who claim that it's perfectly
>> acceptable for a woman to accuse a man of rape in the morning,
>> even though she consented to sex the night before, because she
>> now regrets her decision to have had sex with the guy.
>
>So, Clodreamer, then?
severe as those due an actual rapist.
1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 26, 2013, 11:29:29 AM5/26/13
to
all the inanity of the left.
1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 26, 2013, 11:30:28 AM5/26/13
to
1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 26, 2013, 11:32:28 AM5/26/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:23:27 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013, RichA wrote:
>>
>> >> ?Why is Alice Eve in her underwear, gratuitously and unnecessarily,
>captured the men for sex slaves.
Sounds like a 'Futurama' episode...
wrote:
>In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013, RichA wrote:
>>
>> >> ?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?
>> >
>> >> that circumstance?
>> >
>> > In the liberal progressive universe, only queer men and asexual women
>> > would exist.
>> >
>> > would exist.
>> >
>> No, the future has a society dominated by women, with men having a minor
>> secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women enjoy women.
>>
>> This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet Earth", where
>> John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth where women dominate,
>> secondary role. Needless to say, it's a world where women enjoy women.
>>
>> This was sort of hinted at in the TV movie and pilot "Planet Earth", where
>> John Saxon and his gang visit one part of earth where women dominate,
>> though I don't think it spelled out lesbian directly.
>
>Not only did they not spell it out, it was the exact opposite; the women
>
>captured the men for sex slaves.
Sounds like a 'Futurama' episode...
The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help
May 26, 2013, 11:35:35 AM5/26/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 08:53:51 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rilly. By then, there will be personal force fields that would negate
the need for bras...
wrote:
the need for bras...
anim8rFSK
May 26, 2013, 12:38:23 PM5/26/13
to
In article <pra4q897fhme4jii2...@4ax.com>,
The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Or they'll just turn down the artificial gravity.
"In space, no one can hear you sag"
The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
"In space, no one can hear you sag"
Jim G.
May 26, 2013, 4:36:25 PM5/26/13
to
BTR1701 sent the following on 5/24/2013 8:49 PM:
> And then sat back and watched the feminists' heads explode.
Lindelof is at the point where he's gonna try to be all things to all
people. And when that's not possible, he'll slight the people who he
thinks will be the most willing to quickly forgive him. And that rarely
works out well in the long run.
> In article <kno77p$dum$2...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Ubiquitous sent the following on 5/23/2013 6:21 AM:
>>> By John Horn
>>>
>>> It¹s one of the strangest scenes in ³Star Trek Into Darkness²: With no
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Ubiquitous sent the following on 5/23/2013 6:21 AM:
>>> By John Horn
>>>
>>> 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 film¹s screenplay, is apologizing
>>> strips down to her blue underwear, whereupon James T. Kirk (Chris Pine)
>>> sneaks a peek.
>>>
>>> for the gratuitous sequence ‹ sort of.
>>>
>>> In an email interview with MTV, Lindelof was asked why the ³Men in Black
>>>
>>> III² actress was obligated to show off her ripped body.
>>>
>>> ³Why 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?,² Lindelof wrote.
>>>
>>> He said there was a scene written for Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) to
>>> remove his shirt, but ³I don¹t think it ever got shot. You know why?
>>> that circumstance? Well, there's a very good answer for that. But I'm not
>>> telling you what it is. Because... uh... MYSTERY?,² Lindelof wrote.
>>>
>>> He said there was a scene written for Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) to
>>> Because getting actors to take their clothes off is DEMEANING AND
>>> HORRIBLE AND...²
>>>
>>> Lindelof touted the MTV admission on Twitter, first saying, ³I copped to
>>> HORRIBLE AND...²
>>>
>>> the fact that we should have done a better job of not being gratuitous in
>>> our representation of a barely clothed actress,² and then joking, ³We
>>> also had Kirk shirtless in underpants in both movies. Do not want to make
>>> light of something that some construe as mysogenistic.²
>>>
>>> He followed that post with an apology for misspelling misogynist and by
>>> writing, ³What I'm saying is I hear you, I take responsibility and will
>>> light of something that some construe as mysogenistic.²
>>>
>>> He followed that post with an apology for misspelling misogynist and by
>>> be more mindful in the future.²
>>
>> Damn, there's no shortage of oversensitive twits in the world, is there?
>
> And people who bend over backward to grovel before them and appease them.
>
> If it were me, I'd have just ignored the whiners, but if I responded at
> all, I'd have been like, "Hey, she's a beautiful girl. Maybe we could
> have done a little better working the scene into the story, but have you
> *seen* her? No way that was ending up on the cutting room floor."
That would have been an awesome reply.
>>
>> Damn, there's no shortage of oversensitive twits in the world, is there?
>
> And people who bend over backward to grovel before them and appease them.
>
> If it were me, I'd have just ignored the whiners, but if I responded at
> all, I'd have been like, "Hey, she's a beautiful girl. Maybe we could
> have done a little better working the scene into the story, but have you
> *seen* her? No way that was ending up on the cutting room floor."
> And then sat back and watched the feminists' heads explode.
people. And when that's not possible, he'll slight the people who he
thinks will be the most willing to quickly forgive him. And that rarely
works out well in the long run.
WrongWayWade
May 28, 2013, 3:06:39 PM5/28/13
to
> "misogynistic," Lindelof is also pretty much clueless of what it
> means.
Exactly. We want to see Alice Eve scantily clad because we LIKE her, so
misogyny is exactly the wrong word.
Misogyny: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
Maybe we want to see her scantily clad because we don't trust her?? (hidden
weapons)?
Jim G.
May 29, 2013, 3:26:50 PM5/29/13
to
WrongWayWade sent the following on 5/28/2013 2:06 PM:
That's such a hateful thing for you to say, you hater.
> Misogyny: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
>
> Maybe we want to see her scantily clad because we don't trust her?? (hidden
> weapons)?
I'd mention that searching her would be fun, but then I'd be hating again.
> Misogyny: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
>
> Maybe we want to see her scantily clad because we don't trust her?? (hidden
> weapons)?
Mason Barge
May 30, 2013, 1:10:53 PM5/30/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:04:02 +0100, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> By John Horn
>>
>> It’s one of the strangest scenes in “Star Trek Into Darkness”: With no
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> By John Horn
>>
>> 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
>> strips down to her blue underwear, whereupon James T. Kirk (Chris Pine)
>> sneaks a peek.
>>
>> 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.
>> that circumstance? Well, there's a very good answer for that. But I'm not
>>
>> 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?
>> He said there was a scene written for Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) to
>> 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
>> He followed that post with an apology for misspelling misogynist and by
>> be more mindful in the future.”
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, just write the script better to justify the tart in undies.
It never stopped the writers of "V" from showing Laura Vandervoort in
>>
>
>Yeah, just write the script better to justify the tart in undies.
her undies. I have to say, she looked *good* in them :)
0 new messages