Deleted Shower Scene from Star Trek Into Darkness

on May 25, 2013Posted in: Featured, Film, News

So here’s the story: Star Trek Into Darkness has come under fire, not for the white-washing of Khan, but for the completely gratuitous scene where Carol Marcus stripped to her underwear for no discernible reason. This actually prompted one of the script writers to apologize, followed by J.J. Abrams himself addressing the issue during his interview on Conan. His apology wasn’t so much an apology as it was a way to promote equal opportunity ogling: he showed an incredibly brief scene cut from the final film where Benedict Cumberbatch’s Khan took a shower, looking like a disgruntled cat forced to take a bath. You can watch the clip from Conan that contains the deleted scene below:

Star Trek Into Darkness is in theaters now. What do you think? Should this scene have been included? Do you think Khan’s wet brooding gives a vital insight into his character that was lost in the final cut? Let us know in the comments below!

Source

Tags: benedict cumberbatch, jj abrams, star trek into darkness

3 Comments

Reply

Angela

Posted May 25, 2013 at 4:29 AM

While I am very much amused by disgruntled kittybatch, even more so when Conan adds the porno music to the shot, I do not like Abrams’ take. Because 1: the scene with Carol made it into the movie, whereas this did not, so criticisms about gratuity are still valid. And 2: kittybatch is taking this shower all alone, whereas Carol was being ogled by Kirk even after she explicitly asked him not to. And that is a HUGE difference.
- Reply
  
  Lauren
  
  Posted May 26, 2013 at 12:19 PM
  
  I completely agree. I have been ranting about that scene ever since I saw the movie. He was just OGLING her, after she told him not to! I hated that scene and there was no point to it other than to show her off. Abrams keeps talking about how there was also a scene with Kirk in his underwear, but 1) that doesn’t actually make the scene with Carol better just because they showed off Kirk too, 2) I had actually forgotten that Kirk had been in his underwear in this movie until they mentioned it because the scene did not stand out as much as Carol’s, and 3) Carol’s scene was set up to have her be ogled by Kirk. Abrams admitted himself, that was the purpose of the scene, to show off Kirk being a “womanizer” (I have so many problems with his interpretation of Kirk, do not get me started), so the reason for the scene was literally just to have Carol be ogled. That was the reason.
  
  *deep breath* Okay, I’ll stop ranting. For now…
  - Reply
    
    Angela
    
    Posted May 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM
    
    The more interviews I see with Abrams, the less I like him. I saw him on the Daily Show and he said he didn’t like Star Trek, it was too philosophical for him growing up, and I was just like, ugh, then why are you making Star Trek movies? Jon Stewart stopped him and was like “I stopped listening when you said you didn’t like Star Trek,” so at least that made me happy. It’s not making me feel good about Star Wars.
    
    I don’t know much about the OS so I don’t know much about characterization of Kirk, but I just feel like his “Kirk was in his underwear!” rebuttal is crap anyway. Because Kirk was in his underwear in a bed scene, so it made sense that he be in his underwear. The people who saw Kirk like there were those who were in bed with him, or who didn’t expect to see him like that and certainly didn’t want to ogle him. Whereas there was no reason for Carol to be in her underwear in that scene. Even with Abrams’ interpretation, her being in her underwear functions not even as development for her character, but a man’s. UGH. We already saw Kirk in bed with consenting space ladies. We get it. Stop being such a creeper, Abrams. I think he needs to look up what the word “gratuitous” actually means.