Advertisement

'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologizes for "Gratuitous" Underwear Scene

This is the main board on The Outhouse, where Outhousers talk about everything. No topics are off limits, and it doesn't have to be about comics. All the topics from the other boards also show up in The Asylum, so you never have to leave1

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Logged in users see WAY LESS ADS, so why not register? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

habitual
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 18905
Likes: 134 posts
Liked in: 231 posts
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:41 am
Location: The Rock of Eternity
Title: Habinger of Doom!


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby habitual » Wed May 22, 2013 8:06 am

For the life of me I don't understand how a woman can compose a blog post like that with a picture of her in a mini skirt right next to it.

Definitely smart going with the profile pic though....

Hab

Advertisement

DoctorStupid
User avatar
Inhouser
 
Posts: 69
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:08 am
Title: PHD in idiot.


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby DoctorStupid » Wed May 22, 2013 9:07 am

Herald wrote:You sounded like you are equating "pandering to male nerds" with "featuring nearly-naked women!" Also, you said that the Trek TV shows pandered to male nerds. If these are the case, then there sure are some missing scenes in all the Trek TV episodes I watched! (And frankly, I demand that they be restored! :groucho:)

In addition to that, you claimed that this movie was NOT pandering to male nerds... yet this movie DOES have the "nearly-naked women!" that you claim is "pandering to male nerds". And you even mention just how ridiculously gratuitous the scene in question is! By your definition, that is a contradiction.


First, I don't think PDH necessarily meant that "pandering to male nerds" exclusively means showing sexually explicit material featuring females. Sure, that was the example since that's the topic, but his point was simply that the audience of the original series itself had a significantly higher number of male viewers than female, whereas the current movie series has a much more generalized proportion. He never once said that this was because there was tons of sex in the original show. I think we can all agree that the original series was super crazy nerdy, and sexually suggestive material wasn't really the reason for that (although they did throw some in there from time to time).

Second, he said that the movie as a whole wasn't pandering to male nerds, not that the scene in question wasn't. How many other scenes were there with chicks in their underwear? Just because of this one 30 second scene, all of a sudden you have to label it as a male-nerd fest? I can say with confidence that my wife, who hates the original series and every single incarnation of it that she's ever seen, would thoroughly enjoy the new movie series because they are inherently different. They took the nerdatude down a notch and increased the legitimate action to eleven. The only reason she hasn't seen the new ones is because she has such a negative stigma in her mind when she hears the words "Star Trek".

Last...just to add to the debate...and I hesitate saying this because of possible backlash (that's a lie, I love debating so I yearn for backlash), but I would even go as far as to say that a tiny pinch of "chick in her underwear" is actually appealing to most women. Not because I think that most females want to see naked chicks...but because they like to see sexually explicit things as well. Things that excite them. I think many women will see that scene and imagine themselves being eye-screwed by Chris Pine. Now of course, I'm not a woman, and this is a colossal assumption I'm making here (a theory really), but based on the many conversations about this topic I've had with my wife (this topic = sex in movies), who to me seems like a pretty typical woman, this is definitely the case for many.

Even MORE last, there's a good chance I'm being biased toward PDH's argument because his initial post was funny as hell with all the "That being said" incarnations. I enjoy a good read.
-Dr. Stupid

habitual
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 18905
Likes: 134 posts
Liked in: 231 posts
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:41 am
Location: The Rock of Eternity
Title: Habinger of Doom!


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby habitual » Wed May 22, 2013 9:18 am

DoctorStupid wrote:
First, I don't think PDH necessarily meant that "pandering to male nerds" exclusively means showing sexually explicit material featuring females. Sure, that was the example since that's the topic, but his point was simply that the audience of the original series itself had a significantly higher number of male viewers than female, whereas the current movie series has a much more generalized proportion. He never once said that this was because there was tons of sex in the original show. I think we can all agree that the original series was super crazy nerdy, and sexually suggestive material wasn't really the reason for that (although they did throw some in there from time to time).

Second, he said that the movie as a whole wasn't pandering to male nerds, not that the scene in question wasn't. How many other scenes were there with chicks in their underwear? Just because of this one 30 second scene, all of a sudden you have to label it as a male-nerd fest? I can say with confidence that my wife, who hates the original series and every single incarnation of it that she's ever seen, would thoroughly enjoy the new movie series because they are inherently different. They took the nerdatude down a notch and increased the legitimate action to eleven. The only reason she hasn't seen the new ones is because she has such a negative stigma in her mind when she hears the words "Star Trek".

Last...just to add to the debate...and I hesitate saying this because of possible backlash (that's a lie, I love debating so I yearn for backlash), but I would even go as far as to say that a tiny pinch of "chick in her underwear" is actually appealing to most women. Not because I think that most females want to see naked chicks...but because they like to see sexually explicit things as well. Things that excite them. I think many women will see that scene and imagine themselves being eye-screwed by Chris Pine. Now of course, I'm not a woman, and this is a colossal assumption I'm making here (a theory really), but based on the many conversations about this topic I've had with my wife (this topic = sex in movies), who to me seems like a pretty typical woman, this is definitely the case for many.

Even MORE last, there's a good chance I'm being biased toward PDH's argument because his initial post was funny as hell with all the "That being said" incarnations. I enjoy a good read.


Just an FYI you're engaging in a conversation that's going to be a complete waste of time.

Hab

DoctorStupid
User avatar
Inhouser
 
Posts: 69
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:08 am
Title: PHD in idiot.


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby DoctorStupid » Wed May 22, 2013 9:36 am

Ha! You sound like my wife. Don't you know those are the BEST kinds of conversations?
-Dr. Stupid

outsider
User avatar
Outhouse Drafter
 
Posts: 34153
Likes: 1595 posts
Liked in: 884 posts
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:35 pm
Location: Halloweentown
Title: Absent
Formerly: cyclone, Chili con Blarney


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby outsider » Wed May 22, 2013 9:43 am

DoctorStupid wrote:Ha! You sound like my wife. Don't you know those are the BEST kinds of conversations?
These conversations never end with grudge-filled make-up sex.

(Well, there was this one time with nieto...)
-

S.F. Jude Terror
User avatar
OMCTO
 
Posts: 77151
Likes: 636 posts
Liked in: 1047 posts
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:44 pm
Location: Up Your Ass
Title: Webmaster Supreme
Formerly: Dr. Jude Terror


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Wed May 22, 2013 11:14 am

habitual wrote:
Just an FYI you're engaging in a conversation that's going to be a complete waste of time.

Hab


No! Don't stop him! What if DoctorStupid is the one the prophecies spoke of, who will finally end this plague and destroy Herald once and for all? The chosen one!
Image
I LOVE BLUD BLOOD! - Rob Liefeld

The Old Doctor
User avatar
A Damn Cuddly Beast
 
Posts: 68061
Likes: 1235 posts
Liked in: 1087 posts
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Toronto, ONT, Canadah
Formerly: /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby The Old Doctor » Wed May 22, 2013 11:26 am

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
No! Don't stop him! What if DoctorStupid is the one the prophecies spoke of, who will finally end this plague and destroy Herald once and for all? The chosen one!


The Chosen One needs those 7 daggers to end Herald.
"Why are you pointing your screwdrivers like that? They're scientific instruments, not water pistols."
"Oh, the pointing again! They're screwdrivers! What are you going to do? Assemble a cabinet at them?"
"Are you capable of speaking without flapping your hands about?"
""Timey" what? "Timey wimey"?"

Image
IvCNuB4 wrote:The Old Doctor is Cat-Scratch ?
Well that explains a lot :lol:

BubbaKanoosh wrote:Old Doctor is the NuDCU's Catscratch

habitual
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 18905
Likes: 134 posts
Liked in: 231 posts
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:41 am
Location: The Rock of Eternity
Title: Habinger of Doom!


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby habitual » Wed May 22, 2013 12:07 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
No! Don't stop him! What if DoctorStupid is the one the prophecies spoke of, who will finally end this plague and destroy Herald once and for all? The chosen one!


Then he'd need to be baptized in the waters of Lake Minnetonka.

Hab

Pink_Orchid
User avatar
The Virgin Connie Swail
 
Posts: 3805
Likes: 78 posts
Liked in: 152 posts
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:26 pm
Formerly: Pink Peril




Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby Pink_Orchid » Wed May 22, 2013 12:07 pm

:smt013

Look, was it a dumb scene? Yes. Was it a dumb scene in the first movie? Yes. Did the writer own up to it? Yes.

So what if they show women shirtless? Argument for another day.

My instant rage reaction to those scenes was the fact that in 300 years they still haven't invented anything better than a push-up underwire bra. For crying out loud it's the future! Like they wouldn't have developed some standard issue sports bra and boy shorts made of a supportive, breathable material that conforms to the wearer's shape perfectly.

For all the ridiculous that made up most of the skimpy costumes of the original series at least they were imaginative. Colorful, odd shapes, metallics. The new series is supposed to be more realistic? By shopping at Victoria's Secret?

If they had been wearing something like this, it probably would have been a non-issue.
Image

PDH
penile prisoner
 
Posts: 7360
Likes: 47 posts
Liked in: 110 posts
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:10 am


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby PDH » Wed May 22, 2013 12:19 pm

Herald wrote:
You sounded like you are equating "pandering to male nerds" with "featuring nearly-naked women!" Also, you said that the Trek TV shows pandered to male nerds. If these are the case, then there sure are some missing scenes in all the Trek TV episodes I watched! (And frankly, I demand that they be restored! :groucho:)


Probably best to stick to what I actually said rather than what you think I sounded like I was saying.

In addition to that, you claimed that this movie was NOT pandering to male nerds... yet this movie DOES have the "nearly-naked women!" that you claim is "pandering to male nerds". And you even mention just how ridiculously gratuitous the scene in question is! By your definition, that is a contradiction.


I didn't claim that the movie was not pandering to male nerds. I think that it was with that scene at least. The point was that this might have been a bit of misfire since I'm not sure that the movie's audience is the same as the TV show's.

The TV series may have aimed for male nerds (it's debatable), but the movie certainly aims for a more general audience.


That is pretty much what I said. Hence the scene struck me as out of place.

PDH
penile prisoner
 
Posts: 7360
Likes: 47 posts
Liked in: 110 posts
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:10 am


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby PDH » Wed May 22, 2013 12:31 pm

Herald wrote:
Still deluding yourself into believing that an uninformed statement by someone who admitted that he's never even seen the show in question requires a response, I see. :P


I can point out internal inconsistencies in your reasoning without having seen the thing you're reasoning about. Twig said he didn't like the Big Bang Theory and you decided that you were qualified to assess the psychological reasons behind his opinions. Specifically, you said that the reason he didn't like it was because it made fun of people like him. I pointed out that we could do the same thing with regards to you spending half your life criticising DC to the point of inspiring an actual DC character. That is, we could say that the reason you hate DC so much is because they make fun of people like you all the time (e.g. Superboy Prime). The difference being that in your case there really was a character based on you, personally created by Didio himself and (IIRC) brutally murdered shortly afterwards, so we have a much stronger case than you do.

None of this requires me to watch awful sitcoms.

Herald
User avatar
Fagorstorm
 
Posts: 13129
Likes: 308 posts
Liked in: 397 posts
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:47 pm
Title: Fun for the Whole Family!!


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby Herald » Wed May 22, 2013 12:49 pm

PDH wrote:
I can point out internal inconsistencies in your reasoning without having seen the thing you're reasoning about.


So you claim, but you sure haven't proved it here.

Read on, MacDuff...

Twig said he didn't like the Big Bang Theory and you decided that you were qualified to assess the psychological reasons behind his opinions. Specifically, you said that the reason he didn't like it was because it made fun of people like him.


Again: People don't harp on a mere "bad sitcom" over and over again, unless it has affected them on a much deeper level than merely being "bad" in their opinion.

I pointed out that we could do the same thing with regards to you spending half your life criticising DC to the point of inspiring an actual DC character. That is, we could say that the reason you hate DC so much is because they make fun of people like you all the time (e.g. Superboy Prime). The difference being that in your case there really was a character based on you, personally created by Didio himself and (IIRC) brutally murdered shortly afterwards, so we have a much stronger case than you do.


Your so-called "case" foolishly ignores the fact that I'm PROUD of the fact that I got under Dan's skin, to the point that I have deliberately brought it up AND linked to the blog covering the issue on many, MANY occasions. No surprise that you make your idiotic "case" without knowing this. On the other side of the coin, ANY time Big Bang Theory is mentioned, by ANYone in ANY capacity, people like "Jubilee" get into such a rabid snit about it.

Herald say RELAX. :P

Oh, and by the way, you don't recall correctly. My character was never killed off, thank you very much. This just joins the conga line of things you talk about as if you had one clue about it, but you don't. No surprise there.

It was a pitiful, ill-considered mistake to try to equate me with "Jubilee" and his ilk. I, for one, can actually take a joke, whether it's from the co-publisher of DC Comics, or from a bunch of writers and actors in Hollywood. 8)

None of this requires me to watch awful sitcoms.


All of this requires knowledge.
No surprise that you insist on doing without. :P
Last edited by Herald on Wed May 22, 2013 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Herald
User avatar
Fagorstorm
 
Posts: 13129
Likes: 308 posts
Liked in: 397 posts
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:47 pm
Title: Fun for the Whole Family!!


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby Herald » Wed May 22, 2013 1:04 pm

PDH wrote:I didn't claim that the movie was not pandering to male nerds. I think that it was with that scene at least.


So you ARE saying that "nearly naked woman!" = "pandering to male nerds". Thank you for confirming that and proving me right.

This demonstrates that I DID "stick to what [you] actually said". The only question left here is, are YOU listening to yourself?? :roll:

That is pretty much what I said.


And that was me agreeing with you.

In this part of the discussion, we're on the same page more than you think we are...
Last edited by Herald on Wed May 22, 2013 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

outsider
User avatar
Outhouse Drafter
 
Posts: 34153
Likes: 1595 posts
Liked in: 884 posts
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:35 pm
Location: Halloweentown
Title: Absent
Formerly: cyclone, Chili con Blarney


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby outsider » Wed May 22, 2013 1:05 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
No! Don't stop him! What if DoctorStupid is the one the prophecies spoke of, who will finally end this plague and destroy Herald once and for all? The chosen one!
I hope DoctorStupid is a hot blonde from an inbred Valyrian bloodline.
(Dragons aren't required, but would be a bonus.)
-

PDH
penile prisoner
 
Posts: 7360
Likes: 47 posts
Liked in: 110 posts
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:10 am


Re: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Writer Damon Lindelof Apologiz

Postby PDH » Wed May 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Herald wrote:
So you ARE saying that "nearly naked woman!" = "pandering to male nerds". Thank you for confirming that and proving me right.

This demonstrates that I DID "stick to what [you] actually said". The only question left here is, are YOU listening to yourself?? :roll:


I think there are quite a few questions left, actually. Questions like, 'What are you talking about?' and 'Why do I bother?'

And that was me agreeing with you.


No, that was you thinking you'd scored a point only to discover that you'd just agreed with me because you plainly had no idea what I was talking about and just wanted to argue with someone.

leave a comment with facebook

PreviousNext

Return to The Asylum



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MSN NewsBlogs, MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] and 39 guests

Advertisement