Greg Cox wrote:
I keep vowing not to get sucked into this same old debate again (it's been three years, people.) But the sheer double standard some fans apply to the new movie just sets my eyes to rolling every time. "But STAR TREK would never do that--except for the dozen or so times it already did!"
(I still remember the poster who primly insisted that Gene Roddenberry would have never allowed casual sex or gratuitous cheesecake in Star Trek. WTF? Had they even seen TOS?)
Adding casual sex and gratuitous cheesecake into Trek is exactly what Roddenberry did best
. Not for nothing do many of the early drafts of TNG's first season bear little resemblence to those which actually got televised, mainly because Gene came along with his magic marker and started adding sex scenes everywhere. The difference between Fontana's draft of The Naked Now
and Roddenberry's draft (which ultimately made it to screen) is like comparing apples to oranges.
There's pros and cons to it of course. But nobody could possibly legitimately suggest that Star Trek wasn't always fairly sexuallly super-charged, almost as Gene's raison detre. Now, the addition of sexual overtones to the modern Doctor Who, on the other hand...