crazy_diamond

Me either..

CommanderM

Why is it so many people hack on Alice for being what they refer to as eye-candy but give an out of jail card anytime to Zoe when she stripped down to her underwear in the first (2009) film?

Ouyyir i'ch'Rihan

I have nothing good to say about the new movies, but in this case I must defend them. The key to the quoted statement is "not if she's just eye-candy." Uhura's character does provide gratuitous near-nudity, but the character delivers much than just that. She has a prominent role and also does some acting. I am not defending the use of such skin and sex, but a distinction needs to be made between some who is just eye-candy and someone who has eye-candy as one of several functions in a film.

lyb42

What O said. The problem with the Carol Marcus character played by Alice Eve isn't that she's pretty. It's that she seems to have little (if any) purpose beyond being pretty. And let's be honest: there was no reason to show her shirtless at all, other than "Look! Boobs!"

Chris

Ouy summed up my feelings about it. In the first film, Uhura thought she was in her private quarters, and the scene helped re-establish Kirk as a womanizer when she called him out from hiding behind her room mate's bed. Beyond that, Uhura is a central character and other scenes show that she's an integral part of the crew. As to Carol Marcus, there was no reason for her to change right in front of Kirk other than to have an excuse to show her in her underwear.

CommanderM

I bow out. There's no way I can take on three of you at the same time.

Ouyyir i'ch'Rihan

I did not realise it was a fight.
Besides, it is not a group of people joining forces against someone. There is just a consensus of opinion among the majority of people participating in this discussion that, although there is eye-candy in the movies (the new movies are after all typical Hollywood action movies; lots of action, special effects and some gratuitous skin), the character singled out has nine parts positive contribution and one part eye-candy. So criticising her appearing nearly naked in a Star Trek film has merit, because there is no need for it and it adds nothing to the story. However, it is unfair to compare her brief baring-of-skin to people inserted into movies solely for the purpose of eye-candy. If you disagree with the consensus that is fine. No one will hate you for it.

Chris

Like Ouy said, I didn't mean to come across as ganging up on you. You're certainly entitled to your own opinions. I hope you always feel welcome to share your point of view here or anywhere on .

lyb42

I feel like I've said this more than I should already on this thread, but...

^"What they said."

CommanderM

UPDATE. There is a persistent rumor first posted on TrekMovie.com that the title of the next Star Trek film will be Star Trek Beyond. If true, what do you all think?

Ouyyir i'ch'Rihan

Not good. Such a title should be Beyond something. Just Beyond lacks meaning.

CommanderM

Perhaps so, although I can see in my mind's eye how the title logo will be written, it's a no-brainer but it, as you imply, is rather ambiguous.

crazy_diamond

Hmm not that catchy is that is going to be the title

lyb42

At least for now.

CommanderM

Short of something else being announced, it is at least a working title.