Amen to that. With hair... an attractive woman, without... a stunning creature that stops you in your tracks
In my last attempt at a re-watch, I couldn't get past how unnaturally everyone acted in TNG. Often walking over, standing in small groups with arms stright at their sides, taking turns to recite their lines.
With the proviso that who did what is not necessarily correctly known... As useful as the transporter was in speeding up the scene transitions, in the long run, it caused two problems. The double talk justifying the non-use of the transporter to resolve physical jeopardy was more or less encoded into all the Trek shows' DNA. Also, that level of tech didn't really fit, if you paid attention, leaving a permanent jarring element in the setting, constantly trying suspension of disbelief. The miniskirts were the wrong kind of sex appeal. In the long run, the interest of the characters is what creates any real eroticism. Miniskirts (and their successors, the catsuits,) are merely superficial, sexy enough to offend the prudes without engaging any real emotions or awareness.
I was thirteen years old when Star Trek premiered in 1966. To me, the miniskirts were exactly the right kind of sex appeal.
Just watched TMP the other day and thought the same thing. If she had had hair it would have made the character average. By being bald she was unique and different and stood out.
While I still enjoy TNG some of the episodes have not aged well, they are too talky and a bit boring.
Loved how the women looked in TOS. A credit to the late Bill Theiss. The man was responsible for many a teenage boners.
The hairless, naked Persis really jives with what I think of the androgynous 70s and GeneR's vision of future, enlightened, post-animalistic humans. Don't they look like that in THX 1138? I will concur neither pic does it for me, if we're weighing in. Somebody do a poll: normal Persis or "futuristic" Persis? I guess that's sexist to focus on her looks, but there've been polls on Shat's toupee, right?
We've got to remember that Ilia was supposed to be an alien, and while yes, you can have aliens that are just regular humanoid in appearance, the lack of hair was determined to be the physical characteristic of Deltans. So how attractive she is with or without hair should not be used as a critique against Gene's ideas anymore than debating whether or not Spock should have had pointy ears or eyebrows. And yes, there was resistance to Spock's appearance back in the day too--because studio heads thought he looked too much like the devil. That being said, there's really no other female celebrity who looked that good bald. She's the one everyone goes to in order to prove that bald women can be sexy, which is a success as far as I'm concerned. Also, whatever TMP lacked in other areas, it got people's attention, if nothing else, by virtue of Ilia's appearance. So it served a very important purpose of starting up some water-cooler talk about bald women. Here we are all these years later still debating it.
The whole character seemed kind of ridiculous to me. But I agree with plynch, the look was of the era and went well with TMP's visuals for the future.
It says a lot that most of TMP's promotional material over the years has focused firmly on Kirk, Spock and Ilia. Up to and including the soon-to-be-released standalone Blu Ray cover of the movie. Her look made a definite impact that was totally unique (and arguably remains so to this day).
No contest. And that's just my honour-bound-as-an-Irishman response. Natalie Portman did good work in the same vein. I'd reach for either of them before Ilia in such an argument, if only because most people wouldn't know who Ilia was. Not that she doesn't look good, mind you.