Damon Lindelof responds to Star Trek Into Darkness 'underwear scene' criticism

“We should have done a better job of not being gratuitous”

Star Trek Into Darkness co-writer Damon Lindelof has taken to Twitter to respond to the misogyny claims that have surrounded the now infamous underwear scene.

Featuring prominently in the trailer, the scene - in which Kirk gawps at Alice Eve’s Carol Marcus as she’s changing into her bomb disposal gear - has drawn criticism for for being gratuitous, or even sexist.

Writer Lindelof responded on Twitter with a series of even-handed comments:


Star Trek Into Darkness is currently in cinemas worldwide.


Were you offended by the scene? Or did you feel it was in keeping with the spirit of the original TV show? Tell us below…


    • hawkass

      May 22nd 2013, 16:48

      It was gratuitous and yeah, a bit sexist. Also his comments about Kirk also being shirtless made me cringe. False equivalence, dude! But hey, at least he responded, took it on board, and promised to be more mindful in future. That's a really great thing for someone to do when they could easily brush off complaints as unfounded or just coming from "feminazis." I respect him for answering and taking it on the chin, and here's hoping in future he'll keep to his word.

      Alert a moderator

    • jmo1020

      May 22nd 2013, 17:09

      I'm sorry, how is this gratuitous and sexist?

      Alert a moderator

    • RobnCaruso24

      May 22nd 2013, 17:13

      What surprised me is Alice Eve made no complaints about this scene and not only is she beautiful, but has the body to go with it. This world is becoming so politically correct, that who ever came up with this Political Correctness should be CORRECTED!

      Alert a moderator

    • pdanyluk

      May 22nd 2013, 17:20

      Boo!!!! Not enough as far as I'm concerned lol.

      Alert a moderator

    • Ali1748

      May 22nd 2013, 17:48

      Is this true people complained about a scene that lasted seconds ??? This is ridiculous when did everyone turn into such prudes ?

      Alert a moderator

    • hawkass

      May 22nd 2013, 18:38

      It's gratuitous and sexist because it served literally no purpose other than to show a woman in her underwear. In the first movie when Kirk was shown making out with the green woman, that was there for a purpose, which was to establish him as a womanizer and a bit of a playboy (also arguably to establish that this was a world where sex with aliens was pretty much a-okay). The scene in this one with Alice, however, didn't even try to pretend it was there for any reason other than to show her in her underwear. It's not about being politically correct or a "prude" but rather about rolling our eyes and calling the writers out for what was an obvious cheap shot that could easily have been left out of an otherwise good movie.

      Alert a moderator

    • Andy85

      May 22nd 2013, 19:38

      @hawkass - To argue this case, Star Trek has also been accused of not catering to the larger audience and only satisfying the needs of geeks. The fact that they have added sex appeal to the film shows that they are catching up with the 21st Century audience and they not filling the screentime with either mind confusing dialogue or out and out action. This is not sexist by any stretch of the imagination as it is not mocking or making light of a barely clothed woman, in fact the argument could quite simply say that it is acting in quite the opposite manner by admiring the female form. Either side of the coin, can't society just be adult enough to deal with not even a minute of footage of a lady in her underwear? We see it on television adverts and magazines every day without so much of a whisper so why the big uproar when it is shown on the silver screen in a family friendly film? This is bureaucracy gone mad and Damon Lindelof shouldn't have to justify this to anyone!!

      Alert a moderator

    • BobTheSkull

      May 22nd 2013, 20:16

      SO its ok for Kirk to be half naked and give some eye candy for female/gay fans, since Pine is now considered a sex symbol.... but it's considered sexist and gratuitous for Alice Eve to be the same? Really? When did we go back to the 50's? I agree with Andy85.... Lindelof shouldn't need to justify something as trivial as that. Anyway (I've not seen it yet so this is based on previous knowledge of ToS) Kirk ends up with Marcus and has a child, in the old continuity. I'd imagine this 'gratuitous, pointless, gawping scene' is actually setting up Kirk's beginnings with his old... new flame....

      Alert a moderator

    • wayneirving

      May 22nd 2013, 23:47

      Ok this is Captain Kirk we're talking about I have no idea why this is being criticized as it is. It's completely in the context of the character and it isn't like many MANY movies haven't done the EXACT SAME THING. I think the criticism this is getting is completely ridiculous.

      Alert a moderator

    • jejudo80

      May 23rd 2013, 3:19

      Oh my god oh my god oh my god woman in an underwear how could they do this? Shame on you writers. Dont you know that women also will watch the movie? God. Whats wrong with a woman in an underwear in a movie? We see it in almost every movie. Stop whining about those things and put your energy in something more useful to the humanity and yourself. If it was a guy in an underwear i am sure no one would say a thing. Before criticizing someone or something, look into the mirror see who you are yourself and the see if you have the right, or are in position to do so.

      Alert a moderator

    • gaminx

      May 23rd 2013, 4:52

      As a woman I thought it a bit much when I first saw the film, but then I thought about it more in terms of characterisation. Kirk is the sort of man who can't be told not to look at a woman. McCoy or Spock wouldn't turn around, but Kirk always would. But they didn't need to show the woman in her underwear to show Kirk looking around.

      Alert a moderator

    • BeeNL

      May 23rd 2013, 13:09

      Not a problem to show a female body, not at all. But with just two seconds in the movie means that this frame is only in the trailer as eye-candy. I wouldn't have any objection if her character was seen to be, in any way, important to the story. She is not. And yes, Pine has to go shirtless too. This only means that male actors are now scrutinised for the way they look, just as actresses have always been. Luckily, he also gets to be the star and hero of the movie. It is a compliment that this discussion is happening with this particular movie. It means times are changing and that the makers and audience are no longer accepting what has been acceptable for decades: that the way women look in movies is more important than the roles they play. (The fact that you can name all exceptions means that they are still exceptions.)

      Alert a moderator

Most Popular