Maybe I’m just writing this up because I swear to God, Star Trek Into Darkness was the most attractive Benedict Cumberbatch has ever looked. He put on something like 30 pounds of muscle, his hair was perfection, his costumes were fantastic, and basically he could CumberKhan me into oblivion. But I’m also writing this up because there’s still some consternation about JJ Abrams’ decision to keep Benedict’s Star Trek character such a secret. It was widely theorized months before the film came out that Benedict would be playing Khan. But the studio pushed back and everyone was like, “Eh, maybe not.” And then everyone saw the film and we were like, “Oh, so he IS Khan. Interesting. Why all of the secrecy?” Well, JJ Abrams has some thoughts:
For fans of the series, the lead-up and the marketing around “Star Trek Into Darkness” promised a different movie than the one that hit screens in May. Every interview and article postured who Benedict Cumberbatch was playing, but an hour into the movie, the character reveals his true identity without any major impact on the story. It was enough to make fans wonder what all the secrecy was about.
When director J.J. Abrams stopped by MTV News to discuss his latest project, “S.,” the book he co-authored with Doug Dorst he revealed that he does regret withholding Khan’s identity from the audience.
“The truth is I think it probably would have been smarter just to say upfront ‘This is who it is.’ It was only trying to preserve the fun of it, and it might have given more time to acclimate and accept that’s what the thing was,” he said.
The idea to keep Khan on the D.L. apparently came from the studio, which, according to Abrams, didn’t want to give the impression that a comprehensive knowledge of “Star Trek” cannon was required in order to enjoy the latest installment.
“The truth is because it was so important to the studio that we not angle this thing for existing fans. If we said it was Khan, it would feel like you’ve really got to know what ‘Star Trek’ is about to see this movie,” he said. “That would have been limiting. I can understand their argument to try to keep that quiet, but I do wonder if it would have seemed a little bit less like an attempt at deception if we had just come out with it.”
But “Star Trek Into Darkness” is Abrams’ rearview mirror, and as he moves forward with “Star Wars: Episode VII,” he’s also a producer on the next “Star Trek,” which is said to be considering Joe Cornish as a director. Abrams could not say for sure whether Cornish would eventually beam up, but he sure hopes so.
“I don’t know if Joe Cornish is the guy. My guess is that’s up in the air. I adore him and love him and can’t wait to see what he does next,” Abrams said. “Hopefully it will be ‘Star Trek.’ Whatever it is, he’s brilliant. ‘Attack the Block’ was one of my favorite movies of the year when it came out.”
I actually see the studio’s point about the secrecy when JJ explains it like that. If I had known going into the film that Benedict was playing “Khan,” it still wouldn’t have mattered to me, but I would have felt guilty because I didn’t (and still don’t) know anything about Star Trek. I didn’t get why the Khan reveal was such a big deal because I have no reference point for the original Khan character. So, in that sense, JJ Abrams and the studio got me into the theater with very little guilt but then again, I probably missed some major plot points because I was so focused on The CumberKhan.
PS… Intergalactic SCARF.
Photos courtesy of ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’.
Don’t worry about missing some of the major plot points. They were all pretty dumb. CumberKhan was the *only* decent part of that movie, and my god, did he have some crappy lines to say.
I don’t like JJ Abrams. I think he has a touch of the M Night Shymalans about him.
And hurrah for the leaf-blower pic!
Could you explain this: “I think he has a touch of the M Night Shymalans about him.” Because I don’t know what you mean? PS. I’m not trying to be snarky so I hope it doesn’t sound that way, I just genuinely don’t understand. Thank you.
I think they mean both directors are pretentious asshats 🙂
I just think that his films are REALLY overrated and he thinks that they’re a lot more clever than they are. I also think the mystery thing around Khan was absolute BS and the type of thing Shaymalan would do to try and inflate the illusion of the movie’s quality.
I also don’t respect Abrams for climbing down over this, nor his lame defense over the Alice Eve exploitation – even if it did bring us showering Cumby (note to Kaiser: maybe a thumbnail of that?). I think he sells himself as some kind of aficionado, or genre geek, but falls over every time the wind of public opinion blows against him – he’s a studio hack. When I saw STiD, there were a ton of people who didn’t know and audibly gasped at the I. AM. KHAN. moment. If Abrams had any balls, he would have stuck by his decision and said it was still worth it for the hardcore fans.
Ah, I understand. Thank you for the explanation re comparison to Shaymalan.
I agree, the Alice Eve defense (and the Zoe Saldana defense in the first Trek film) was total BS. I also think the Cumby shower scene is not even close to on a level playing field with the Alice Eve shot. Alice Eve was completely in her underwear, top and bottom, the shower scene was just his chest (even though he has a nice one).
I don’t respect JJ for basically blaming others either!
I felt terrible for Alice Eve. I know people like to bash her on this site, but she’s been around as an actress for a long time, and she was cast in this blockbuster movie for no other purpose than to strip down for a ten second shot. The character was utterly redundant.
I wouldn’t say AE was exploited in any way. She as an actress could’ve protested at any time and in subsequent interviews she seems to have had no issue with it at all. I don’t think the scene was sexist, it was just really really stupid.
I would say that it is sexist because it is extremely unnecessary, and it only happened to get a rise out of the fanboys (and JJ and every other man who worked on the film).
That’s a bit of a leap to make, isn’t it? How would you know that it got a reaction from ‘JJ and every other man on the film’? What about the gratuity of Chris Pine topless in bed with two aliens? Was that done for the benefit of every woman who worked on the film?
It wasn’t sexist. Just because a unnecessary scene with a woman in underwear occurs in a film, that doesn’t mean she or any other women have been exploited in any way.
It’s facile, childish and incongruous, but that doesn’t equal sexism. If she was uncomfortable, she would could have protested at any time. She didn’t. And when asked in an interview, she was just concerned that she remained as skinny as possible and didn’t eat chips. Painting her as some poor passive victim of a patriarchal industry is pretty silly, IMO.
She doesn’t appear concerned with things like that. She was in Sex and the City 2 as a nanny who never wore a bra. Now, THAT’S a dodgy career choice.
Awesome. Let’s slutshane Alice Eve for taking trying to make her career happen. Because there are SO many other credible options available to pretty girls in Hollywood. Of course nobody held a gun to her head, but if she didn’t do it, she would have lost that opportunity, and probably many more. You can’t blame the woman because the system is sexist. That’s one step away from saying that I’m pretty sure Uncle Terry is just misunderstood, too.
Um, excuse me?
How on EARTH is that ‘slutshaming’? Seriously, that’s crazy. I’ve read some nonsense online, but that literally makes no sense at all.
You are the one trying to portray her as a poor little victim, not me. I’m pointing out that she was perfectly happy to do that scene. She had a choice and she chose to do it. Now, you’re accusing me of ‘slutshaming’? I mean. You’re joking, right?
I’m with Jessica and Fanty here. AE’s character’s sole purpose was to be looked at, as she really did not serve the plot one iota, and that’s pretty damn sexist. There’s no two ways around it either. IF she served the plot somehow then it’s not as sexist because it (even sexism) can further the plot. But her character was eye candy only. The gratuitous undressing scene, unfortunately, just highlighted that aspect.
Now claiming AE is okay with it — that’s equally an assumption as many professional actresses keep their mouth’s shut until the twilight of their career. So we really don’t know her, or her fellow actors’ feelings, on this as many won’t be honest in public about it.
But JoJo, you’re essentially saying that Alice Eve (or any other actress) has the same power as JJ Abrams and she doesn’t.
Most actresses OFTEN talk about the sexism in Hollywood and how they have to ignore their own principles and morals to be on even footing with men. Alice Eve does not have the power that most of her male counterparts do and even they get exploited.
The real problem with the Alice Eve scene for me was the lack of point/payoff. Honestly if she had stripped down with the idea of seducing Kirk I would have been OK with it. He’s hot, get some girl. But there was zero payoff, so it became just male gaze nonesense.
The scene in the first movie with Saldana? Totally OK with it. Screwball comedy with everyone in their underwear. That one worked.
The character was bland and extraneous, that does NOT mean she was ‘eye candy’. Just because it was a badly written role, doesn’t mean that they wrote in the underwear scene and just threw in some lines around it.
As I’ve said, Chris Pine sitting in bed topless is gratuitous, but strangely nobody makes a big deal about that. A woman stands there in underwear in a badly edited and poorly judged scene, and that’s rampant sexism and she’s a victim of evil male directors and writers? Give me a break.
Surely you’d be doing women more of a service if you actually credited them with making informed decisions for themselves? And to suggest she had to take it because Hollywood is not a great place for better roles for young women?
Equally ridiculous.
She is not averse to incongruous nudity in films. She’s done it several times. Going back to her sole reason for being in SATC2 – she was a woman who didn’t wear a bra. That was it. Were there the same cries of sexism then?
I remember an interview quote from her a while back where she used a Marilyn Monroe quote in regards to onscreen nudity, saying something like ‘flesh was meant to be shown’, or something along those lines. She’s seems more than OK with it, so all the conjecture, hyperbole and second guessing on this one is more than a bit OTT.
No! I’m not joking. You’re blaming the woman for making crappy career choices while willfully ignoring the fact that these were the only choices available to her. Of course she sold the movie. That’s her job. There’s economic coercion, social coercion and career coercion at play. To assume that someone isn’t under pressure because they have a smile on their face is just plain naive. This was a straight white male’s movie. Everyone else’s value was deemed irrelevant.
And how utterly silly to say that just because the role was unnecessary, poorly written, cast with a beautiful woman who happened to be the only one to take her clothes off in public, it wasn’t eye candy. Now I think you are joking.
Who made Alice Eve take the role? Furthermore, she’s been TOTALLY nude numerous times in movies. And I mean naked for no reason. Naked just putting clothes on. She’s not adverse to it and frankly she’s not a good actress. Her body has got her this far. It was not beneath her to show her panties and bra in a huge Hollywood movie.
But I do agree that she was used. But she allowed herself to be used — everything else really is just excuses. I don’t even intend this in a mean, snarky way. I really mean this totally rationally: excuses are just that: excuses. She wanted this career that she’s not really noticeably talented for. So what else is she going to do? What else is an actress with a gorgeous body going to do when she WANTS and CHOOSES a career that she’s far less talented at than many other women around her?
Final point: STID really, really is a sh*t movie. JJ Abrams should kiss the ground BC walks on for agreeing to grace it with his presence.
So Alice Eve has been nude before, so? A lot of actresses have to be ‘okay’ with nude scenes in order to work. She also might honestly be okay with it too. It doesn’t mean that her Star Trek character was any less sexist though.
Prostitution is legal in some states and countries. Some women even *choose* to become prostitutes. Neither of those two facts make prostitution any less sexist. Same argument applies to actresses as well. Just because it’s ‘okay’ and some women are fine with it doesn’t diminish the sexism.
@Mia: Totally agree about the undressing scene. If it had a point, like trying to seduce Kirk (which might further the plot), then it’s no longer sexist or eye candy.
@tfanty – you are crazy. I almost don’t know where to start with your nonsense. ‘Wilfully ignoring the fact these were the only choice available to her’? FACT? Really? I’m assuming you’re not on speaking terms with her, so classing your ill informed opinions as ‘fact’ is quite simply wrong.
You are quite simply guessing that and ironically doing women a great disservice by assuming and declaring as fact that she was oppressed and coerced and exploited by this movie because it suits your agenda. Nobody knows what goes on for sure, but I think my assessment of her being fine with it (based on FAR more than a smile on her face) carries a great deal more weight than your opinion of the ‘straight, white male’s movie’. I mean .. come on? Really?
She has the career she chooses. If a role isn’t to her taste, she is not obliged to take anything that she finds distasteful, as that will only lead her into similar roles which lack credibility in the future. Please stop screeching that she’s forced to take this evil role because she simply had to.
She chose it. She took it. It was a poorly written and peripheral role, but NO that does not equal sexism or eye candy, because she’s young and female.
And I notice nobody has addressed the double standards of Chris Pine’s topless scene? Which is apparently absolutely fine. What about poor Chris? Why is nobody thinking of him? It was his only choice. It was this or the Oreos ad. He had to take this role.
Wow. I feel like I’m trying to reason with
Kanye West. Right now, this isn’t a debate and I don’t do screaming matches. I think (to put it mildly), we’ll have to agree to disagree.
@JoJo: Fanty is certainly not crazy. Agree or disagree with her all you like but Fanty, hands down, is one of THE most articulate contributors on this entire site. Whether she’s being snarky or intellectual, she’s a complete delight either way. And even when I don’t necessarily agree with her — she always has very thoughtful points for me to consider.
Overall, I find it tremendously sad that you cannot see all the sexism running rampant throughout your own presentation. I see missed opportunities all around — here and in the movie.
ETA: In an attempt to see your side though, what did Carol Marcus (AE’s character) bring to the movie? How did her undressing scene add to the story? Because you really need to address those questions in order to support your theory. Which so far, you haven’t attempted to do.
@ladyslippers You can save the character reference and the cliqueyness. I’m really not interested in tfanty’s posting history or how articulate she’s capable of being.
Her argument here about the poor exploited girl and her sad story of needing to stand in her bra and pants because she couldn’t get anything else is conjectural craziness. That’s that.
Carol Marcus’s character brought nothing to the story. But that does not mean her entire casting and role was revolving around being the token girl who gets her kit off. There are countless roles that are peripheral and extraneous, that does not mean they exist for that reason.
And at no point have I said that the underwear scene brought anything to the story. Several times, I’ve said it was unnecessary and stupid, I suggest you reread what I’ve said if you think I’ve indicated any different.
Also, male nudity is not seen in the same light as female nudity due to the fact men traditionally have more power than women. In addition, Pine/Kirk, was only bare chested, not seen as nude either. Male nudity is defined as ‘full frontal’ and happens very rarely compared to female nudity. This comment is, unfortunately, a red herring on your part.
However, BC/Khan’s shower scene also seemed not to promote the story and was correctly removed for the final screening. All it was have added was eye candy (unless there was a point to the shot that we aren’t aware of). The bedroom shot of Kirk was to further Kirk’s characterization of a ladies’ man which is an important to the overall storyline. In fact, as Mia pointed out, if Eve/Marcus was attempting to seduce Kirk that eye candy shot suddenly is transformed into the beginning of their love affair. Takes it from being a gratuitous scene to a meaningful scene. It’s that simple of a fix.
You called Fanty crazy and that’s a mischaracterization. And cliquey? Nope, it’s just respect from me and I think she deserves it.
I have read your comments several times and asked the questions as I didn’t feel they had been addressed by you. Otherwise I wouldn’t have asked them.
LadySlippers says:
“Also, male nudity is not seen in the same light as female nudity due to the fact men traditionally have more power than women.”
———————————————-
Really? This is your answer to the double standards?
So, it’s not the same because men are more powerful? Honestly?
And you keep referring to nudity. She wasn’t nude, she was in underwear. And he was bare chested. That’s titilation for female fans. My point is not a red herring and you’ve highlighted exactly the hypocrisy here with the total lack of evidence for one scene of undress being any less sexist than another.
Male and female nudity is viewed very differently and it’s because men hold the power.
Wow. A lot of Alice Eve hate on here.
Anyways T.Fanty is right. Seriously, stfu with all the bashing because she has a killer body and has used it to help her career. Something that 98% of all actresses do/ have done during their career.
For the record, she isn’t a terrible actress, not the best, but I would say she and Zoe Saldana are on the same level.
No one has expressed “hate” for Alice Eve. So please, don’t make accusations like that. Megan, I made an IDENTICAL statement to yours (“she has a great body and has used it in her career”) and I assume I’m one of the people being accused of Alice Eve hate?
We have made fair and honest statements about Alice’s career choices. She owns them, so why can’t everyone else?
@Jojo had made valid points but unfortunately calling other commenters “crazy” only served to diffuse the good point she was trying to make. Jojo, I was going to back you up but now it seems pointless to bother. I did agree with most of your comments, though, and I understand where you’re coming from.
Heck, I understand where ALL of you are coming from — I just don’t agree with some of the conclusions you arrive at, especially constantly attributing a victim stance to women. On the one hand we’re fed feminists memes like “women making independent choices” and “women owning their sexuality” but then when a woman actually DOES that you blame men for her choices and you second-guess whether she’s actually REALLY owning her sexuality. God, I just can’t even with this.
Calling people crazy and accusing others of “hate” and “slut-shaming” (when no one accused Alice Eve of being a slut!! (???)) is what needs to stop. People who have trouble accepting/dealing with the fact that someone else thinks differently from you no matter HOW you defend your point probably shouldn’t be on social media making comments.
[B]here[B]
Jojo, thank you for raising the unpopular points and asking the unpopular questions, They are thought provoking, so I’ll try my best to address them fully and give them the specifics they deserve.
1. Alice Eve being the “poor exploited girl and her sad story of needing to stand in her bra and pants because she couldn’t get anything else is conjectural craziness.”
Female authors like Ann Aguirre are speaking out about institutionalized sexism, of how she has been treated by male writers when at conventions for example, “I had a respected male SF writer call me ‘girlie’ and demand that I get him a coffee, before the panel we were on TOGETHER,” she wrote on her blog. She further writes of the “dismissive, occasionally scornful attitude” she has found as a woman writing science fiction. “I’ve held my silence when I probably shouldn’t have. But I was in the minority, a woman writing SF, and *I was afraid of career backlash.* I was afraid of being excluded or losing opportunities if I didn’t play nice.” http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/12/science-fiction-sexism-sfwa
In Comic Cons, the gaming industry, Science Fiction, and yes, the big budget movies, tokenism is the norm. What I mean by “tokenism” is a very specific meaning: the limited inclusion of a member of a minority that creates a FALSE impression of inclusion. http://www.comicbookgrrrl.com/2012/02/23/women-in-comics-tokenism/
Alice Eve, like all the males and females belonging to the tiny microcosm of actors who actually get work in their chosen profession, MUST toe the line or she will be blackballed and subsequently unemployed.
2. “Carol Marcus’s character brought nothing to the story. But that does not mean her entire casting and role was revolving around being the token girl who gets her kit off. There are countless roles that are peripheral and extraneous, that does not mean they exist for that reason.”
The New York Film Academy has published a remarkably comprehensive study that sadly demonstrates just that: enduring disparities are revealed in the number of speaking parts given to men and women; the relative number of roles requiring full or partial nudity also shows a stark difference; and the sexual divide in off-screen jobs and the gulf in earnings between male and female actors is laid bare.
When 26% of actresses appear partially naked compared to 9% of men in the highest grossing 500 films from 2007 to 2012, 29% of women wore sexually revealing clothes compared with only 7% of men, and the percentage of teen girls depicted with partial nudity rose by 1/3 while the boys’ percentage stays flat, the numbers unambiguously add up. This means that in leading roles alone, (not even counting supporting roles and extras), 75 PERCENT of all actresses have at least some nudity compared to 25 percent of actors’, so countless peripheral and extraneous women’s roles DO revolve “around being the token girl who gets her kit off.” . – http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/dec/01/hollywood-women-inequality-film-industry
3. What about “the double standards”? … She wasn’t nude, she was in underwear. And he was bare chested. That’s titilation for female fans.”
Of course, you are right when you are talking about only that “one scene of undress being any less sexist than another.” The sexism comes in when you have gender inequality of such huge ratios across the board, so Alice Eve’s stripping to her undies is just another drop in the bucket of patriarchy.
Hollywood remains stubbornly set in its ways regarding sexual equality. Old habits die hard. One of the reasons we haven’t seen much change is that it’s not seen as a problem by people in positions of power and not even by some women. Unless you perceive something as a problem, you’re not going to fix it.
IMO, even though there’s been some heated exchanges in this thread, and Lord knows I’ve been a bit strident myself in other topics, a lot of posters in this thread are women who care about doing the right thing. They’re speaking out, so maybe other women who have had these experiences will do the same. If enough of us gather the courage to say, ‘Hey, look, this is NOT ALL RIGHT,’ maybe the world will change.
*after once again putting the ‘P’ in pedantic, wipes hands off, and climbs off soap box*
*leans against soapbox* Maureen, You make a really excellent point – divisive labeling is divisive and is not very persuasive either way.
@Jojo, who wrote: “I wouldn’t say AE was exploited in any way. She as an actress could’ve protested at any time and in subsequent interviews she seems to have had no issue with it at all. I don’t think the scene was sexist, it was just really really stupid.”
Firstly, J.J. Abrams isn’t the ‘protest-accepting’ type. And yes, I think she was exploited as well. There was absolutely no (rhyme) or reason for her near nude scene in the film. In fact, the entire female cast is, in my opinion, exploited in being made to wear those ridiculously short ‘shirts’ (that’s what they look like, long tunics) without the benefit of the black ‘tights’ the women in the ‘original’ “Star Trek” wore. The male crew members get to walk around fully clothed from neck to foot (they even wear ‘two’ shirts, for goodness sake!), but the female crew members are forced to walk around the ship nearly naked.
Abrams is a short, egotistical, Napoleonic, narcissist with a Zeus complex. The first mistake he made was in assuming the Director’s role in a film project he ‘admittedly’ has no love for (he’s a huge “Star Wars” fiend who just ‘never got’ the “Star Trek” thing … and therefore attempts to make his “Star Trek” vision as ‘Star Warsy’ as possible). The second mistake he made was in coming back to direct “Star Trek: Into Darkness.”
I don’t have a problem with the script or the acting in “Star Trek: Into Darkness.” But I ‘did’ have a problem with the most excellent Karl Urban being delegated to a mere supporting character role, as Bones (Dr. McCoy), Kirk, and Spock were the big three in the original series (as a “Star Wars” fan, Abrams probably just doesn’t get the three-way bromance), and all major character stories revolved around them.
*TOTAL SPOILERS ALERT*
The original Abram’s reboot was fun because it focused on the triumvirate of Kirk, Spock, and Bone. In Roddenberry’s groundbreaking futuristic Star Trek, all three were the sort of salt of the earth, Sinclair Lewis type everymen that the audience could relate to. They were struggling to leave their chauvinistic, bigoted, and anachronistic attitudes and beliefs behind. Janice, Uhura, and Nurse Chapel were ushering in new “I am Woman, Hear me Roar” ideals, much the same as our country was exploring new notions of femininity. Racism, nationalism, and paranoia were bygones of a distant age.
The original Star Trek mostly succeeded in establishing new paradigms that paralleled our country’s march toward the new anthem of “Make Love, Not War”. J.J. Abrams then basically turned a 1960’s cultural revolutionary Sci Fi icon for peace, into a neo con darkly fascist military propaganda piece. Remember the ‘Prime Directive’? Noninterference and respect for all known and unknown cultures of the universe is somehow turned into an Orwellian spank bank of jingoistic military conquest. Instead of a swashbuckling, horny Kirk who constantly wrestled against his all too earthly dark impulses, ultimately triumphing again and again each episode through his hard fought growth as a human being & his ever expanding empathy with each new life form they encountered, we get a John Wayne who blithely abandons his avowed UNIVERSALLY sacred duty to save one life!? WTF?!
Star Trek Original thrillingly embraced diversity; Abram’s gives us a white guy cast as Khan when the writers could have easily made him striped or something to avoid demonizing anyone of color. Into Darkness not only totally lacks imagination, but the not so subtle endorsement of interning bad guys without a trial Gitmo style is portrayed as the greatest good. The overarching point of view STID explores is what happens to a society (Starfleet) when principles/democracy/rule of law are ignored under the guise of “security”, and then basically says “Psych! Don’t worry your pretty little heads, America. All’s well that ends well!
Special effects and the candy colored neon decks of STID’s Enterprise can’t hide the shallow gloss of lipstick on this pig.
@ JoJo: Chris Pine’ s scene was not useless to the plot! His character is a womanizer who likes to bed women and female aliens! The fact that he was showed bare chested was part of his character development! In the first movie Zoe Saldana was in her underwear and I don’ t think that scene is sexist at all! Fanservice? Hell, yes! Sexist? No! She was in her room, getting naked to go to bed! Sure, they could’ ve written a scene with her completely clothed and have her saying the same thing, but it made sense for her to be half naked, and I am totally fine with it! Alice Eve in STID was unnecessary, dumb and done only to raise interest (and something else) in the males who watch the movie or worked in it!
Less blatant, but annoying and sexist JUST AS MUCH, was the treatment of Uhura! While not the brightest bulb in town, at least in the first movie she did something! in the second she is there to complain about the fact that her boyfriend, a guy whose life is led under the rule of “suppress you feeling”, doesn’ t show his feelings enough! Really? He’ s part of a race of people who try their damnedest to hide their feelings and you bitch about it? Are you expecting that he completely changes his being for you? And when does she do it? In the middle of a mortal mission!
I agree that women are treated with less respect and hold less power compared to their male counterpart, but I don’ t like when they are made the victims of it! No one is forcing them to do it! They could very well refuse a part if they think it’ s sexist or humiliating! Why aren’ t women in this industry writing and directing more movies? Maybe movies without this stuff? Why aren’ t actresses refusing to be considered meat? Why are these women accepting to do photoshoots with just their underwear on and then complain in the same interview about how tired they are for being objectified? It is not that difficult, if you don’ t want to be valued by your tits alone, stop showing them! I know it’ s a man’ s world and all that jazz, but if the only thing they (we) can do is complain instead of taking a strong position about it and hold it, it’ s partly our fault as well! And for the love of God, stop defending these jerks! Alice Eve spent months defending Abrams and that scene instead of saying: “Yes, it was tacky and unneccessary, I wish I had the guts to say no!”.
Agree with you Fanty as STID was horribly written. But I’d extend the goodwill to ZQ as well — he made the most out of his crappy lines too.
And the DoS interview where BC talks about JJ keeping his character a secret is super cute!
ETA: The link to the interview
http://ie.ign.com/videos/2013/12/02/star-trek-into-darkness-benedict-cumberbatch-on-whether-keeping-khan-a-secret-was-a-mistake?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
You can’t blame the bad writing of Into Darkness on Abrams, he didn’t write it. Orci and Kurtzman did.
But JJ as director AND producer hired them.
I love that interview. “What a dickhead?” WHAT A DICKHEAD. DICKHEAD!!! I can’t stop laughing thinking about it. Dickhead.
Also his buttons hanging on for dear life, Sherlock-style. Gahhhhhhhhh
I’m surprised Kaiser didn’t feature the interview as it’s a gem!!!
Yes, the buttons are very very distracting.
*gulp*
JJ is a bit of a dickhead so it’s fair, even if he is joking.
The slurping at the start was distracting…
I think Benedict honestly likes JJ though….
Oh yes I’m sure he does, that was more my opinion than his
I really cannot care for ST. I only went bc of the CumberVoice.
Cumberbatch was just as crap as the rest of the movie. His “MY NAME IS KHAAAAAANNNNNNN” line had be rolling with laughter.
Do you comment on every Cumberbatch post?
I love Cumberbatch in anything. Yum!
Yup Kaiser. Like you I wasn’t a Star Trek fan before going to see Into Darkness. Cumbers was the only good thing in that movie (besides Simon Pegg at his goofy best). I actually think Chris Pine made me want Captain Kirk to take a kick to the crotch, just to see some real emotion.
And yet nothing about how they white washed the role.
Star Trek really ahead of its time in terms of representation, Abrams did a disservice by hiring Benedict (not because he isn’t talented, he is, but the character wasn’t white).
They purposely hid that shit because they knew fans would be mad.
Smh.
ALL of the politics in the play were so messed up. Morally CumberKhan was completely right.
The evils of extraordinary rendition was the central moral, and I think that’s respectable.
“Cumberkhan me into oblivion.”
I die. I literally just died.
Lolo-ology, I think the movie was a thinly veiled apologist screed of our current evils.
@Sloane, I’m not so sure. Maybe it was the powerfulness of Cumby’s performance, but I saw it twice in the theater and both times, walked away feeling like it was more of a call to caution with the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter” motif. And I was scrutinizing it more the second time, since the adrenaline rush of the action was less than when I first watched it. Or maybe you’re right and we weren’t meant to feel conflicted about Khan’s fate in the end, and that was just an unintended consequence of phenomenal acting on Cumberbatch’s part.
JJ did a *number* of disservices to the Star Trek franchise…
To me, making a mockery of all of Gene’s ideals (JJ throws diversity and breaking barriers/taboos completely out of the window and ‘Khan’ was just one of many of those examples) is his biggest transgression. 🙁
If I was in your presence in real life, I’d hug you right now.
I said the same thing you said up post, only your comment was mercifully succinct! 🙂
I went to see it while on holiday in NY in May.
A lot of folks reacted quite badly when “My name is…KHAAAN” happened.
Quite honestly, I had no idea who Khan (the original Star Trek villain) was before this movie. Now I know that he was the villain in Star Trek II, the movie from way back in the day, after reading some things about it. So I didn’t have any big “ah-ha” moment when the character was revealed–there were some of those, by the way, I went to see it in theatres and there were clearly some Trekkies who know the significance, but I didn’t. From JJ’s explanation, given my own non-Trek canon knowledge, I understand why they kept it a secret. But I also don’t think it would have mattered, at least not to me. I literally ONLY went to see this in theatres because Cumby was in it. So whatever character he was playing, whether I knew the canon or not, or was supposed to know the canon or not, didn’t matter to me at all. I saw the 2009 Star Trek on DVD after it came out, and would have eventually see Into Darkness when it came out on DVD, but I would have never gone to see it in theatres had Cumby not been in it. So good casting there. I’m clearly not a Trekkie. I prefer Star Wars and Doctor Who to Star Trek.
im over it…all i know is that this movie had BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH in it…thats it , im going home now…laterz !
I’m a new member of the Cumby fan club. I enjoy reading everyone’s comments, thought I’ll jump in for a chat 😀
I agree with Kaiser – Cumberbatch is totally hot as Khan, Love the hair, his ripped body, and the way he carried himself. I love watching Sherlock but I don’t find him hot in the show.
I still can’t believe a pasty white dude played Khan Singh.
The original role was played by Ricardo Montalban, the son of Spanish emigrants to Mexico who was raised as a Catholic.
Who was not seen as white, and who founded the Nosotros Foundation in order to advocate for Latinos in the film industry who had suffered from the same career-curtailing racism that he did.
The fact that Khan Noonien Singh was played by a Latino man in the early 1980s isn’t an excuse to cast a white actor in 2013; it’s a reason for Abrams to cast an actor of the character’s actual ethnicity and give an Indian actor a chance he might not otherwise have had. White guys like Cumberbatch are not hurting for roles, and there’s something especially insensitive, historically speaking, about giving a white British man a role that should rightfully go to an Indian one.
The cast saved this movie, all of them.
Abrams and his writers were weak. That said, it got mostly positive reviews and made a ton of money so what do I know? He’s on an apology tour to fanboys/fangirls because Star Wars fans are ready to rip him to shreds….but the hardcore ones will anyway…so it’s pointless. New blood for Star Trek 3 is a great idea, I look forward to it.
I kind of get that sense too, that Abrams is trying to apologize and/or distance himself from Star Trek because a lot of fans are saying that he will ruin Star Wars the way he ruined Star Trek.
Re Star Trek 3, I think they should get new writers as well as directer.
JJ has said he won’t direct but will stay on as a producer.
I know, unfortunately for me he’s going over to Star Wars–I hope he doesn’t completely screw that up.
After Star Trek, I’m scared about what he’ll do to Star Wars too.
“The truth is because it was so important to the studio that we not angle this thing for existing fans. If we said it was Khan, it would feel like you’ve really got to know what ‘Star Trek’ is about to see this movie”
AKA we wanted a white man who had a following but don’t want to come out and say it.
Isn’t Khan supposed to be Indian? Or some kind of genetic hybrid, or some science freaky shit.
I don’t get why he chose Cumberbatch for this role. Like there are literally billions of people JJ could have chose from.
The whole movie was a mess. It’s like he didn’t even try.
OR an easy fix to keeping BC was keeping the character’s name John Harrison. What Khan brought was a history that wasn’t really needed for the movie. That’s a quick and easy fix. Lots o’ problems solved right there.
If they really wanted Cumberbatch and Kahn there was an easy fix and reveal. Have him say he’s Kahn, check with Spock much earlier…but have Spock describe him an Indian. OK, false alarm, he’s a liar. But then they learn the people pulling his strings repeatly changed his appearance for their own purposes, erasing even his heritage (surgery or whatever, it’s Star Trek!). OMG, it’s Kahn! There’s your shock reveal and political commentary all in one.
Hollywood here I come.
That works too!
Basically there’s prob several ways to fix their ‘Khan’ storyline. And all would have made more sense than the one they went with.
I’m gonna have to disagree about the hair. When it was flopped over, I was so distracted because it looked JUST LIKE that emo kid on South Park’s hair! But gods was Cumby good, especially in the scene where he’s explaining what happened to his friends. “Tell me, wouldn’t you do the same?” *sobs and nods vigorously*
I know, the ship crash near the end, he had hair curtains which I found quite hilarious.
He’s lying. Major BS and face-saving going on here. That’s what they do in H’wood. Lie and BS the public (and each other). The truth is JJ wanted Ben for this role and JJ knew there would be backlash over a white man playing a traditionally non-white character. He didn’t want backlash and negative commentary to be the lead-up to his movie. He knows that race is seriously hot-button and the backlash likely would have destroyed the movie before the fact. THAT’S what his “secrecy” was all about, and he is totally lying about that now. Personally, I don’t care about this racial stuff, but there are lots of people who live and breathe by it.
Perhaps I’m really slow on the uptake, but I don’t get this discussion about a traditionally non-white character. Are we now to understand that Spaniards who emigrate to Mexico are suddenly non-white? Since the original Khan was not played by someone ‘traditionally non-white’ (i.e. Ricardo Montalban), what’s the difference? Or am i to understand that anyone hailing from south of the U.S. border is non-white? In my understanding of the complexities of Latin America that in itself comes across as pretty racist.
Of course, they could have painted BC with brown makeup—& that would really have been something else for all in the CumberCollective.
@Late to the Party
You are right, absolutely. Ricardo Montalban WAS white. Spaniards are white Europeans. But all that gets very confusing for people outside of Spain. My dear friend Marta who is an olive-skinned, black-haired, brown-eyed Spaniard beauty was appalled when a Black American (African-American) told her to her face that she wasn’t White. Marta told me, “I never imagined at the age of 33 that someone would tell me I am something that I am not and become angry when I corrected her.” But getting back to the Khan issue: I think the director got away with Ricardo’s portrayal because racial things were just different back then. They slapped a black wig on him and painted his skin brown and everyone sort of went, “Okay, that’ll work”, but really it was gross and inappropriate.
+1
Also Khan was one of the best villains ever and a Star Trek iconic character. The studio knew there would be serious backlash in trying to remake The Wrath of Khan. JJ is continuing with the bullshit in this interview. Such a studio stooge.
I am a huge trekkie, of all the movies and TV shows (except deep space nine). I’ve watched them since I was little (in the 70’s) so I grew up with the movies and TV series.
I was pleased he was Khan. I like how they are reinventing the stories and giving them a twist. Having Carol Markus there was genius, sets the stage for David to be born.
The lines in all the shows are corny, they are supposed to be. Campy and corny but really good at the same time.
The acting, by all of them, is superb. These actors have nailed the original characters. The only one who is different is Uhura, as they needed to give her a bigger role. She wasn’t a central focus in the original series.
as for JJ not saying BC’s character before the movie came out, I think it was a good choice. The Wrath of Kahn is a personal favourite, so I was glad to see the way the changed it and didn’t just copy the original plot (Khan was in a TV episode as well as a movie, so there was a lot of background). But Khan is central to Kirk, as he is what brings Kirk and Carol back together, and then finds out about his son, David. So it needed to be done, if they wanted to stay somewhat true to the personal history of Kirk. So it was a great movie, brought forth a lot of new ways to carry things on and stayed true to the characters and the series.
Speaking of Cumby, he was on Twitter promoting Hobbit II.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/19-things-we-learned-from-benedict-cumberbatchs-twitter-qa?s=mobile
Thanks so much, Kitty, for the change of pace. Tonight I can dream of Puff the Magic Dragon farting to fly faster—that is, if it’s weed that’s doing the flying.
“And maybe fart fire while flying.” I like that he enjoys toilet humour!
Wasn’t BC second choice for this role?
Also, I saw a comment on YT about how the characters read about Khan and his crew in school because he was first frozen long before their time. So when he says “My name is KHAAAN,” it’s like “Oh noes, we’re in trouble now!” But yeah, one comment and I’m not a die hard Trekkie so idk.
I honestly thought Gary Mitchell would have been better and I was pretty convinced it was. Watch the episode “where no man has gone before” and compare to the really early teasers.
On a complete 180 note, the twitter Q&A was glorious.
Benicio del Toro originally took the role, and backed out during contract negotiations (Star Trek pays its actors shit).
BDT as a choice for Khan…that’s interesting. It brings up the same race issue, as BDT is just as white Spanish has Ricardo Montalban (sp?) was.
@Maureen BDT is Puerto Rican and stated that he has Indigenous American ancestry. He definitely doesn’t look straight Caucasian….
Puerto Ricans descend from SPAIN. And BDT also makes claims to being part Italian. MY POINT (in case you missed it) is that he no more looks like a Singh Khan than Benedict Cumberbatch does.
Did you follow the news when all those celebs were doing their DNA testing? If you did you might recall Eva Longoria — who is Mexican — discovering with shock and horror that her racial make-up is 90% WHITE after wearing the “Hispanic” label proudly for years. The point I’m making is that in countries like PR and Mexico you can’t label their races so easily. And you CANNOT ever label someone as one race or another simply because of their hair and skin color. Giselle — for another example — is Brazilian. But not ethnically. She is White (Caucasian), as her family are originally from Germany. Therefore, her kids are not “half Brazilian”. They are not Brazilian at all – nationally or ethnically. They are 100% White. I’m only trying to make a point about racial labels and f*cking ridick they are.
Hi, first time posting here and I find this thread interesting.
I’m Puerto Rican and I want to add that in Latin America (at least in Spanish speaking Caribbean) culture and race are viewed separately. The label “Hispanic” or “Latino/a” is not viewed as a race; it refers to a group of cultures with a similar historical background (Spanish colonies) or a common Romance language (Spanish, Portuguese or French). Race is viewed differently and is based on physical appearance (for example, Black Puerto Ricans are considered Puerto Ricans if they were born and raised in the country. And yes, races are not so easy to label. Cultures of Latin America are a huge mix of cultures-European (because of colonialism), Indigenous American (for example, Aztec, Mayan or Incan-strong presence in Mexico, Central America and parts of South America) and Africa (strong presence in PR, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti and Brazil). So, there are many race labels. For example, in PR we have trigueño/a (olive-skinned), indio (dark skinned with very straight black hair), mulato/a (half White/half-Black), blanco or jincho (very pale-skinned), cano/a (pale-skined, blond/e hair) ajabao, mestizo/a……it’s a huge mess.
In conclusion, each culture makes up their labels and categories and it can be ridiculous
I agree with Kaiser… Cumberbatch looked HOT in Star Trek into Darkness… and every time I watch that movie, I start drooling when he comes up on screen (and I’m drooling as we speak just thinking about it!). Love him!
Anyhoo, I always thought that the biggest misstep of Star Trek into Darkness was that Abrams made a remake. The first Star Trek movie was completely original and it was wonderful, and then the second go around, he rehashed everything that most people had already seen and/or knew from pop culture. Plus, casting a white guy as a Northern Indian dude was a big faux-pas as well (even though Cumberbatch stole the movie from almost everyone except for Quinto).
Even so, I still liked the movie. Forget me being mad at Abrams for messing up Star Trek into Darkness… I’m still pissed at him for ruining the last couple seasons of Alias and Felicity!
It’s a GOOD thing to have no reference point when it comes to Khan.
Because my husband came out of the movie and immediately said, “Khan was Pakistani. Why did they cast the whitest guy on the face of the Earth to play him?”