shwnspncr:

hc-svnt-dracones:

I feel like they could remake that whole movie from Chekhov’s point of view.

The title would be THIS IS NOT MY JOB! and it would just be two hours of Chekhov running around the warp core with his little goggles as everything goes to shit all around him.

#I CANNOT DO ZAT

(via krakenface)

spinthetireslightthefires:

lunsfuhd:

kirkspocks:

buzzfeedceleb:

Benedict Cumberbatch deleted shower scene from Star Trek Into Darkness

#HE LOOKS LIKE A CAT GETTING A BATH

Oh so it’s okay for us to freak out over Benedict’s shirtless scene and have multiple scenes of Pine being in underwear but the same people who enjoy those scenes are the ones who are up in arms about this: 

Double fucking standard.

Um, does society have a history of objectifying men, to the point where a man’s physical attractiveness is pretty much the be-all, end-all of his worth?

Do male characters ever get reduced entirely down to being pretty?  Do male characters, when attractive and competent, immediately get branded as Marty Stus and “pandering”?

Do we have a history of making male characters objects, solely to be acted upon, pretty set dressing for the protagonist to make out with after the battle is won?

Do we, culturally speaking, objectify men’s bodies to the point where naked or nearly-naked big-name actors are the immediate reason a demographic will flock to see a film?

Do we advertise films and video games and the like with scantily-clad men, whose clothing is far from useful in regards to actually doing anything, once again rendering them objects to be acted upon rather than characters bearing their own agency and making their own choices?

Do we, consciously or unconsciously, only consider men in relation to other people “Oh, such-and-such’s brother!  Anywho’s husband,” rather than letting them stand independently as human beings?

No.

But we do do all that to women.

The fact that this scene was cut, while Marcus’s scene was not, is massively problematic — once again, a man is an active participant and a woman is the object on which he acts.

In Marcus’s scene, Kirk disregards her request that he keep his back to her while she changes.  He objectifies her, and we, as the audience, are meant to do the same.

Considering the consequences of this wide-scale, normalized objectification of women — i.e., the nice guy syndrome, entitlement, rape culture, street harassment — is not at all given any kind of analogous situation for cis men, nor any such consequences, it’s a pretty big goddamn problem that Carol Marcus’ gratuitous underwear scene exists.

Especially in context that this scene was cut.

Murf out.

(Source: BuzzFeed, via hungrylikethewolfie)

witch-breed:

do you ever stop and think

wow

DreamWorks actually went on and rescheduled the whole goddamn movie

just because they wanted Dylan O’Brien

that is how goddamn talented he is

(via bringingclawstoagunfight)