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!

Lord Simian
User avatar
The Lord of the Monkeys
 
Posts: 34806
Likes: 113 posts
Liked in: 202 posts
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:57 am
Location: Poosting from The Outhouse


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

Postby Lord Simian » Thu May 23, 2013 7:32 am



The guy who has had pretty much 95% of this board ask moderators to force a stop to him posting tropes shouldn't be telling other people what THEY can and can't say. Too much pot-on-kettle action for anyone's good this early in the morning.

Advertisement

Herald
User avatar
biny little tird
 
Posts: 12572
Likes: 116 posts
Liked in: 206 posts
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:47 pm
Title: Fun for the Whole Family!!


Online


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

Postby Herald » Thu May 23, 2013 7:40 am

Lord Simian wrote:
The guy who has had pretty much 95% of this board ask moderators to force a stop to him posting tropes shouldn't be telling other people what THEY can and can't say. Too much pot-on-kettle action for anyone's good this early in the morning.


I see you didn't understand that it was a joke (unlike said requests). Good to know.

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 » Thu May 23, 2013 9:00 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:)


How could I not assume that's what you meant? The logic in this statement implies that you believe that he meant that "pandering to male nerds" only means "featuring nearly naked women". Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about missing scenes in the original show. Also...

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


"=" means equal (of course). This means the two things are synonymous. You cannot be one without being the other. By this logic, if you indeed were saying that the correlation was not necessarily exclusive, then you also believe that Spock yelling "KHAAAAAAN!!!!!" is a form of nearly naked women. WTF am I talking about? Allow me to illustrate.

If pandering to male nerds = nearly naked women
and pandering to male nerds = Spock yelling "KHAAAAAAAN!!!"
then nearly naked women = Spock yelling "KHAAAAAAAN!!!"
(this, of course, assumes that you agree that the Spock scene in question really was a treat for the male nerds in the audience, who we earlier established were the primary audience of the original movies)

In reality, "nearly naked women" is a subset of "pandering to male nerds". If you had said...

Herald wrote:So you ARE saying that "nearly naked woman!" ⊂ "pandering to male nerds".


...then I would not have assumed you were implying exclusivity.

Now all that being said...we've all gone back and fourth so many times on this, I'm actually not really sure what it is that you were trying to prove. Did PDH say at some point that he did not believe that naked chicks were a way of pandering to male nerds? I guess what I'm asking is what exactly is it that you have proven that PDH is unable to argue regarding all this?

Herald wrote:You did say that "they like to see sexually explicit things as well"; that's the part I take issue with. (I highlighted it above for easy reference.) I'm not talking about the "emotional connections" part of your argument, since emotional connections are not "sexually explicit".


Very true. The emotional connections I'm referring to are triggered by sexually explicit imagery. Lust, for example.

Herald wrote:As long as you realize that last line. :wink:


Ha ha, not sure why you ever questioned that I did...I was purposefully clear about it in my first post about the subject. (below)

DoctorStupid wrote:Now of course, I'm not a woman, and this is a colossal assumption I'm making here (a theory really)


Herald wrote:Oh, and for the record, I referenced TWO women, not just one. :-D


HA! Touche!

DoctorStupid wrote:*Lots of junk about how we can never really speak for the masses with any sort of accuracy*


Herald wrote:So, like I said, you shouldn't have gone down that road in the first place. :wink:


What??? Why on earth not?!? Theoretical debate is the best kind! I'm more interested in debating about this than whether or not you can school PDH on the semantics of a couple of his posts, frankly. Exponentially more, in fact. Also, I'm pretty sure it's a lot more in line with the topic of the thread, ha ha.

Okay, ONE LAST comment. The only reason I mentioned that people may be biased against you was to make a point. The way you argue is pretty hostile for the most part. The POINT of arguing (or debating) is to prove a point. Another way to put it is to get the people you're talking with to agree with you. How can you do that if everyone is getting annoyed and angry at you? I'm certainly not saying you're the only culprit here, but it seems like you take the most heat and honestly, you're posts are often extremely insulting. Not to me mind you, and I think that's because I try to be really professional and respectful in my posts, but in my opinion, even if someone insults you in their post, the best thing to do is diffuse the situation and try to get things civilized again. No one will listen to you if you are fighting. People lose respect for you and the less respect someone has for you, the less they want to listen. My observation is that a lot of people here have lost respect for each other and thus tend to just wait for their turn to speak instead of actually listening to what the other guy has to say.

And as for biases...we ALL are completely riddled with them. Anyone who says that they are free from bias (or have very few biases) typically are just unaware of the biases they have.

Okay, I'm done. FOR NOW! MWAH HA HA HA!
-Dr. Stupid

BlueStreak
User avatar
The Red Stands for Irony
 
Posts: 12257
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 28 posts
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:06 pm
Title: Bat-Min Inc.
Formerly: BlueStreak


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

Postby BlueStreak » Thu May 23, 2013 9:15 am

Saw the movie last night, so I can finally form a full opinion about the film.

I think both sides make some good points. Carol Marcus mainly exists to advance the plot and get hit on by Kirk and McCoy. Uhura, on the other hand, is shown to be a pretty integral character to the story, although she does seem to spend a lot of her time getting emotional over Spock (or Kirk).

The underwear scene is 100% unnecessary and only exists to get Alice Eve mostly naked.
Image

Schlemmer
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 17929
Likes: 113 posts
Liked in: 122 posts
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:48 pm
Title: Hot-Linker
Formerly: Schlemmer; spelled the same but sounds different


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

Postby Schlemmer » Thu May 23, 2013 9:25 am

BlueStreak wrote:The underwear scene is 100% unnecessary and only exists to get Alice Eve mostly naked.

Wouldn't that make it 100% necessary, then? :smt017

The Old Doctor
User avatar
A Damn Cuddly Beast
 
Posts: 66123
Likes: 576 posts
Liked in: 391 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 » Thu May 23, 2013 9:25 am

BlueStreak wrote:Saw the movie last night, so I can finally form a full opinion about the film.

I think both sides make some good points. Carol Marcus mainly exists to advance the plot and get hit on by Kirk and McCoy. Uhura, on the other hand, is shown to be a pretty integral character to the story, although she does seem to spend a lot of her time getting emotional over Spock (or Kirk).

The underwear scene is 100% unnecessary and only exists to get Alice Eve mostly naked.


Next film, they need to improve on that. Get her naked. :lol:
"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:

Herald
User avatar
biny little tird
 
Posts: 12572
Likes: 116 posts
Liked in: 206 posts
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:47 pm
Title: Fun for the Whole Family!!


Online


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

Postby Herald » Thu May 23, 2013 10:14 am

DoctorStupid wrote:
How could I not assume that's what you meant? The logic in this statement implies that you believe that he meant that "pandering to male nerds" only means "featuring nearly naked women". Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about missing scenes in the original show. Also...



"=" means equal (of course). This means the two things are synonymous. You cannot be one without being the other. By this logic, if you indeed were saying that the correlation was not necessarily exclusive, then you also believe that Spock yelling "KHAAAAAAN!!!!!" is a form of nearly naked women. WTF am I talking about? Allow me to illustrate.

If pandering to male nerds = nearly naked women
and pandering to male nerds = Spock yelling "KHAAAAAAAN!!!"
then nearly naked women = Spock yelling "KHAAAAAAAN!!!"
(this, of course, assumes that you agree that the Spock scene in question really was a treat for the male nerds in the audience, who we earlier established were the primary audience of the original movies)


I don't consider "equal" to mean "completely interchangeable". Even words that are synonymous are not completely interchangeable, since different words have different connotations, shading the meaning of a phrase in a different direction, sometimes slightly, sometimes dramatically.

Or, to get closer to the point, we say that men and women are equal. But does that make us interchangeable?? Good Lord, no! I, for one, would rather look at a pretty lady than a handsome guy; those two are not interchangeable to me. :wink:

In reality, "nearly naked women" is a subset of "pandering to male nerds".


And that's what I meant at the outset. Just because I did not mention EVERY element that appeals to male nerds doesn't mean I think that "nearly naked women" is the ONLY element that appeals to male nerds.

Herald wrote:So, like I said, you shouldn't have gone down that road in the first place. :wink:


What??? Why on earth not?!? Theoretical debate is the best kind! I'm more interested in debating about this than whether or not you can school PDH on the semantics of a couple of his posts, frankly. Exponentially more, in fact.


As am I. Like I said, I deliberately nixed that argument the first time he attempted it.

Also, I'm pretty sure it's a lot more in line with the topic of the thread, ha ha.


That, too. :D

Okay, ONE LAST comment. The only reason I mentioned that people may be biased against you was to make a point. The way you argue is pretty hostile for the most part. The POINT of arguing (or debating) is to prove a point. Another way to put it is to get the people you're talking with to agree with you. How can you do that if everyone is getting annoyed and angry at you? I'm certainly not saying you're the only culprit here, but it seems like you take the most heat and honestly, you're posts are often extremely insulting. Not to me mind you, and I think that's because I try to be really professional and respectful in my posts, but in my opinion, even if someone insults you in their post, the best thing to do is diffuse the situation and try to get things civilized again. No one will listen to you if you are fighting. People lose respect for you and the less respect someone has for you, the less they want to listen. My observation is that a lot of people here have lost respect for each other and thus tend to just wait for their turn to speak instead of actually listening to what the other guy has to say.


As you mentioned, many of us have already lost that respect for each other. And frankly, I already know that there's no possibility of getting any back from this bunch, so there's no point in me bothering to try. As I've told them before, I'm not interested in getting them to agree with me on anything, since they never would, no matter how nicely I phrase anything. To them, "The Complainer Is ALWAYS Wrong." So when I post, I'm only out to get my point -- whatever it is on any given topic -- across. If people agree, that's great; if they disagree, well, it depends on how they disagree...

As you mentioned, you're respectful even in disagreement, so you're cool. These other guys?? I know their tricks all-too well -- apparently MORE than they do mine, despite all their claims. Really, I only take the most heat because I'm more outspoken than most and don't just take their crap when they start flinging it. They even make fun of the more self-effacing people, like Sdsichero -- or, as some of them call him, "Nerdyboy". So much for nicer being safer...

I actually hope that they take the advice a few people have given on this thread, and not bother starting an argument with me anymore. I have never asked anyone for one in the first place; I just come in, express an opinion on something, and one of them decides to make an issue of it.

Certain people, like "Jubilee", will try to pick a fight just because I posted something, while pretty much ignoring the actual topic completely. Check out the "6 Stupid Superheroine Costumes" thread I started. What's the first thing "Jubilee" posts?? An idiotic personal attack on why I started the thread. And Fieldy Snuts comes along to agree with him. Nothing that addresses the actual topic from either of them. Like I said, PREDICTABLE. Needless to say, those people in particular should feel free to stay out of my way. Of course, I know full well they won't, because they can't help themselves, as demonstrated by the aforementioned thread.

And as for biases...we ALL are completely riddled with them. Anyone who says that they are free from bias (or have very few biases) typically are just unaware of the biases they have.


That's my point about reactions to Big Bang Theory. Whether they realize it or not, nerds who vehemently hate the show will do so because they have an inherent bias against it, due to being the target of the jokes.

Okay, I'm done. FOR NOW! MWAH HA HA HA!


BWAHAHA! :-D
Last edited by Herald on Thu May 23, 2013 10:45 am, edited 4 times in total.

The Old Doctor
User avatar
A Damn Cuddly Beast
 
Posts: 66123
Likes: 576 posts
Liked in: 391 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 » Thu May 23, 2013 10:19 am

JUDE!!!

I need a reader's digest filter for Herald's posts. I sorta want to read them, but I really don't want to read all that is there.

Can it be done?

:-D
"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:

Herald
User avatar
biny little tird
 
Posts: 12572
Likes: 116 posts
Liked in: 206 posts
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:47 pm
Title: Fun for the Whole Family!!


Online


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

Postby Herald » Thu May 23, 2013 10:31 am

Cat-Scratch wrote:JUDE!!!

I need a reader's digest filter for Herald's posts. I sorta want to read them, but I really don't want to read all that is there.

Can it be done?

:-D


That last post got scrambled, Cat. I fixed it, so try reading it now.

Or you can buy a copy of "CliffsNotes for Herald Posts", written by me, for the low, low price of $19.99. :D

S.F. Jude Terror
User avatar
OMCTO
 
Posts: 75976
Likes: 386 posts
Liked in: 540 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 » Thu May 23, 2013 10:32 am

Cat-Scratch wrote:JUDE!!!

I need a reader's digest filter for Herald's posts. I sorta want to read them, but I really don't want to read all that is there.

Can it be done?

:-D


It's not worth it, man.
Image
I LOVE BLUD BLOOD! - Rob Liefeld

The Old Doctor
User avatar
A Damn Cuddly Beast
 
Posts: 66123
Likes: 576 posts
Liked in: 391 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 » Thu May 23, 2013 10:33 am

Herald wrote:
That last post got scrambled, Cat. I fixed it, so try reading it now.

Or you can buy a copy of "CliffsNotes for Herald Posts", written by me, for the low, low price of $19.99. :D


Still too long.

If I can't steal it, it's NOT worth buying. :twisted:
"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:

Schlemmer
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 17929
Likes: 113 posts
Liked in: 122 posts
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:48 pm
Title: Hot-Linker
Formerly: Schlemmer; spelled the same but sounds different


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

Postby Schlemmer » Thu May 23, 2013 10:52 am

Cat-Scratch wrote:
Still too long.

If I can't steal it, it's NOT worth buying. :twisted:

Herald torrents

The Old Doctor
User avatar
A Damn Cuddly Beast
 
Posts: 66123
Likes: 576 posts
Liked in: 391 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 » Thu May 23, 2013 10:54 am

Schlemmer wrote:Herald torrents


Those are virused.
"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:

Herald
User avatar
biny little tird
 
Posts: 12572
Likes: 116 posts
Liked in: 206 posts
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:47 pm
Title: Fun for the Whole Family!!


Online


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

Postby Herald » Thu May 23, 2013 11:09 am

DoctorStupid wrote:Now all that being said...we've all gone back and fourth so many times on this, I'm actually not really sure what it is that you were trying to prove. Did PDH say at some point that he did not believe that naked chicks were a way of pandering to male nerds? I guess what I'm asking is what exactly is it that you have proven that PDH is unable to argue regarding all this?


A good question, since the actual topic tends to get lost EVERY time we get into these arguments. :roll:

I refer back to my post on page 3, which quotes PDH saying:

PDH wrote:That being said, when you do something like that you are basically saying, 'we're not that bothered about the female audience,' which again is fine. There's no reason that every film needs to cater to men and women in equal proportions and there are plenty of movies that are basically unwatchable for straight men, so if you want to make a film pandering to male nerds, go for it.

But I actually don't think this is that film. I really don't. Let's not confuse Star Trek the television series for male nerds with Star Trek the movie starring Chris Pine, Benedict Cumberbatch and Zachary Quinto, the Hollywood movie for young people.


To which I replied:

Herald wrote::?

If "pandering to male nerds" is supposed to mean "female fanservice galore!", then all the previous Star Trek TV series owe us quite a bit of that, especially Next Generation and DS9! Quick, Troi and Jadzia, bend over several more times!

Frankly, this movie sounds more like it's pandering than what we got out of those shows...


PDH wrote:And finally, having said various other conflicting things, I should also add that the scene was pretty crap and made me laugh when I watched it. The pretext was just so flimsy that it actually did affect the integrity of the narrative. It was like, 'OK, now I'm going to be naked for no reason, DON'T LOOK! JUST A WOMAN IN HER UNDERWEAR NOTHING TO SEE HERE!' I normally think people are exaggerating when they talk about scenes throwing them out of movies because they seemed tacked on or whatever but I genuinely see where they're coming from with this. It totally came out of nowhere.


...as you seem to mention. :P


And that's my post in its entirety.

I specifically wanted to confirm the part in which PDH mentioned "...when you do something like [having nearly naked women traipse around in a movie] you are basically saying, 'we're not that bothered about the female audience,' which again is fine... so if you want to make a film pandering to male nerds, go for it."
Last edited by Herald on Thu May 23, 2013 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Herald
User avatar
biny little tird
 
Posts: 12572
Likes: 116 posts
Liked in: 206 posts
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:47 pm
Title: Fun for the Whole Family!!


Online


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

Postby Herald » Thu May 23, 2013 11:13 am

Cat-Scratch wrote:
Still too long.

If I can't steal it, it's NOT worth buying. :twisted:


BAD Kitteh. :P

leave a comment with facebook

PreviousNext

Return to The Asylum



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 37 guests

Advertisement