STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
IN DEFENSE OF LINDELOF'S INFAMOUS UNDIES SCENE
I am a shameless Geek.
I really am.
I wear a Batman belt buckle out of irony.
I quote Vonnegut.
I Grok.
I've been to Barsoom.
I've said So Say We All after "Galactica Actual".
I lost my Luke Skywalker X-Wing Pilot action figure on Southie's Carson Beach when I was a sunburned-backed kid.
I got two remaining lightsabres from the Episode I "daze"...I'm thinking about giving them to @DelDrum's boys and dub them True Padawans of the Republic. A great fate for a toy but iDigress...
I am a Geek.
And I got my virtual heart broken because I spoke my mind about a Hot Nerd Subject.
I got BLOCKED on Twitter!
ME???
Well I can be a complete jerk at times, yeah. This I know. But that wasn't my intention!
Awwww...sheeeesh. It's like getting dumped in High School. This kinda sucks...kinda. It's not making me reach for the pills.
Yet it's got me reaching for my ChromeBook.
Hey...I'm not saying I'm Right. But I got a great argument & I am very well-intended.
I mean you no harm by supporting the notorious "Underwear in Star Trek Into Darkness" Scene.
@briantruitt Eve's scene happened for no reason, with no context. Straight up "look at her."
@briantruitt Eve's scene happened for no reason, with no context. Straight up "look at her."
— Jill Pantozzi (@TheNerdyBird) May 22, 2013I can't disagree with this on Twitter...
I'll become a Nerd Pariah!!!
Yet...
I completely disagree with this. Totally. Completely.
And once again based on Robert McKee's "Story".
So this is my context.
And I just saw Star Trek Into Darkness twice in 4 days.
I think initially the underwear shot was lost on me. Just another sexy image in a bevy of other sexy images...heck even the Enterprise is sexy! As Scotty said in the 2009 movie "I'd like to get my hands on her ample nacelles if you'll pardon..."
And in hindsight of all this
Okay the Hubbub if you don't know is this!!!
Damon Lindelof, of LOST fame and other things got Both Barrels about this scene...
He's one of the screenwriters. The character is CAROL. She is a Science Officer aboard the USS ENTERPRISE on this mission, a "new" character & the "Love Interest" for KIRK.
Just because I feel unfairness about this level of judgement on me & the film...
I gotta say something.
I have the utmost respect for Bloggers & Twitters like The Nerdy Bird above but I need to say I think this scene has a place in the movie. I respect feminism as well. I am a fan of Camille Paglia if that says anything about my Orientation on Feminism & Raised by my Single, Working Irish-Catholic Ma in the Projects of South Boston (and my aunties & Irish grandparents :)
OK...
I'm just going to spit out my theory. Then take my exile onto the IntrePoop version of Seti Alpha V in the NerdWorld.
ok...
in ACT I, a scene opens to see a turntable playing a 20th Century Hip-Hop album. it is KIRK's bedroom, and he's waking up between feline-alien twins.
This is an establishing scene. This is Who JAMES KIRK Is. Is he not?
This scene suggests he's like a Rock Star. He's the youngest captain in Starfleet history, of the Flagship of all things.
KIRK is "in & out of Deep Trouble" for all of ACT I...then we meet CAROL, the ship's newest brilliant Science Officer on the shuttle to the ENTERPRISE before the mission starts in ACT II. CAROL is KIRK's "Love Interest". KIRK is going through a stage of EMOTIONAL MATURITY as an INTERNAL STRUGGLE (EXTERNAL would be the BIG BAD, MINIONS, et al).
In Act I, part of the trouble when KIRK's mentor, PIKE was "dressing down" KIRK for impulsive yet heroic actions. (And to prove this THEME of KIRK's Emotional Maturity, to opposite SPOCK is tested & put through a Stage of EMOTIONAL ACCEPTANCE for his Internal Struggle)
Now come to ACT II when the "Strip Scene" happens.
The reason for the Stripping is an Away Team mission.
CAROL tells KIRK to NOT PEEK as she's changing into her spacesuit.
KIRK peeks ANYWAY.
CAROL tolerates the look briefly then closes this scene by ordering KIRK to look away.
Now...I truly believe these two things.
1. KIRK Sexually Harassed a Junior Officer by doing that. Damon Lindelof might be the writer yet all writers know our characters have lives of their own and move the pen with their own words. it's a unique relationship between Muse & Scribe. Why aren't we mad at "KIRK"??? CAROL is a Junior Officer. I mean in the 21st Century, the US Military had the "Tailhook Scandal". What about a Captain giving a Junior Officer a "look" during those circumstances.
2. The reason for the camera angle & the duration is Simple. KIRK fell in Love. That sensation of Time Stopping. Man...ever fallen in Love? Ever seen Him or Her? Seriously? Fans of the property know that CAROL & KIRK are "Love Interests". And their fate is up them them in this new timeline. This is How They Met. Look at this Jock. This Rockstar. This un-serious, cavalier hero.
This is a SCENE in ACT II of the movie. The actions of these two soon-to-be romantically-inclined characters is called a BEAT, an action beat within the scene that moves the story along.
Further along in ACT III at the end of the movie, CAROL & KIRK have suffered tragedy TOGETHER & SURVIVED. CAROL loses a father & becomes ORPHANED. Ultimately CAROL becomes part of the ENTERPRISE's infamous crew for their 5 YEAR VOYAGE of EXPLORATION. KIRK says "welcome to the family" and CAROL responds "it's good to have a family".
This is thematic. Now like KIRK, CAROL is lost a parent yet now part of a surrogate family of peers & friends. KIRK & CAROL now have the promise of the future with hope & expectation.
So that's the thought. I'm sorry Geeky Ladies are offended by not only the "gratuitous" shot of CAROL but my defending of it.
I'm a 40-year old dude. I might not have a problem with CAROL in her undies ;)
Yet that "controversial" scene was there for a reason. It was meant to move STORY along.
And it is a PG-13 movie with sexiness included.
I dunno...I hope my spacesuit doesn't come with a chastity belt.
And how this doth pisses on the age-old question: "Who got more ass: Riker or Kirk?"
C'mon. Don't be a Herbert!
Why interpret something negative?
Thank you.






