Lame Defense of Carol Marcus Underwear Scene
Speaking to 1701 News, Roberto Orci (one of the authors of Star Trek into Darkness) offered the following on the scene of Carol Marcus changing her clothes in the movie (a scene that had a rather prominent place in the movie’s commercials):
Orci also knows that some fans had issues with Carol Marcus, played by Alice Eve, disrobing for what appeared to be practically no reason at all. Lindelof has taken the blame for that scene, but Orci says the true fault of that scene actually lies with someone completely different: J.J. Abrams.
"Originally, they were going to open the torpedo in orbit, in space, so originally we had Kirk chasing her into a room where she was changing into a space suit," Orci said. "So it seemed more purposeful when we originally conceived it."
However, because of production costs, they decided to open the torpedo on land instead. And while Marcus does wear a different outfit, Orci does understand fans who say she didn’t need to really change — and certainly didn’t need to do it in front of Kirk.
"I can’t claim to be an expert on feminism, but I can point out that you can see Kirk half-naked as well, in both movies," Orci said of Chris Pine. "He’s in his underwear, so is Uhura.
"Did the movie need that scene? No. Was Alice Even a good sport? Awesome."
Orci says he remains torn about how feminism is perceived today. "You can’t watch Miley Cyrus on the VMAs and not be confused about the state of feminism."’
Ah yes, the confusing nature of feminism with a side helping of the Miley Cyrus Defense,
I think I would prefer that they just admit that a) Alice Eve is an attractive lady in really good shape, and that b) showing attractive ladies in really good shape in their underwear appeals rather heavily to the main demographic likely to purchase tickets to Star Trek films.
Although I will give them credit for the amusing pretzel logic.
Such scenes, btw, are hardly unusual or especially noteworthy, but this one really did feel shoehorned in (a feeling reinforced by its aforementioned prominence in the commercial). The ongoing silly attempts to explain it only reinforce that impression.