Yeah -- it was funny the way they poked fun at their own trope by contrasting the sexy shots of T'Pol's body with an equally long and leering examination of Phlox's rather more off-putting anatomy.
When did Trek become a 'family' show?
- Thread starter Control Voice
- Start date
Yeah -- it was funny the way they poked fun at their own trope by contrasting the sexy shots of T'Pol's body with an equally long and leering examination of Phlox's rather more off-putting anatomy.
What would have been funny is if Phlox had been subsequently presented as among the most fit of his species and gender. A real, in your face, reality check about homocentrism, appearance and desirability.
This is reminding about an interview I once read with an actress who did a movie with a fair amount of nudity -- She said that when she first read the script, there were two sex scenes, and after she signed her contract, there were suddenly WAY more. I can't remember if the interview was with Sherilyn Fenn or Jamie Pressly, but it was one of them, I think.
But still, amazing that they can get away with that sort of thing.
Yup! ^^ Pretty awesomely blocked and shot for sure.
Are those US Navy ships routinely shot at, bombed, hurled into spatial anomalies, messed with by super-powerful enemies, while wandering around in uncharted hostile territories for years on end?
A better comparison would be the European explorers and settlers of the 16th and 17th century. Those trips weren't generally casualty-free.
They do not need more deaths because of drama. But if they are in situations where there is a high statistical likelihood of deaths, and they continuously get themselves out without a single one, the 'Magic bubble of protection' starts to glisten a little too brightly to ignore.
Exactly. It's the Final Frontier out there. "Risk is our business," etc.
And remember Q's great speech about "bloody noses"?
(Probably my favorite quote from all of TNG.)
Most casualties were caused by disease back then.
And in the 23rd century, you have Rigelian fever, mind-altering viruses, aging diseases, etc. Heck, the whole crew nearly died from a fever outbreak aboard the ship in "Requiem for Methuselah" . . . .
To quote Doctor McCoy: "Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
And in the 23rd century, you have Rigelian fever, mind-altering viruses, aging diseases, etc. Heck, the whole crew nearly died from a fever outbreak aboard the ship in "Requiem for Methuselah" . . . .
To quote Doctor McCoy: "Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
Yes, but most of these diseases can be reversed in minutes with a hypo-spray. No such luck when you got beriberi in the middle of the ocean and it's the 16th century.
And in the 23rd century, you have Rigelian fever, mind-altering viruses, aging diseases, etc. Heck, the whole crew nearly died from a fever outbreak aboard the ship in "Requiem for Methuselah" . . . .
To quote Doctor McCoy: "Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
Yes, but most of these diseases can be reversed in minutes with a hypo-spray. No such luck when you got beriberi in the middle of the ocean and it's the 16th century.
Not necessarily. Common diseases, sure, but the rare exotic ones were still a threat in Kirk's time. I mean, look at "Requiem" again. That was a life-threatening medical emergency to the entire ship, not a minor nuisance to be cured with a few quick shots.
And, especially in the third season, the Enterprise was often dispatched to deliver vital medicines to some remote colony that was suffering from some ghastly epidemic or another, as well as exotic fungi that wiped out entire food supplies, etc. Plagues and famine seemed practically commonplace.
The Final Frontier was never supposed to this safe, orderly, well-civilized place where everything was under control. Maybe back on Earth, sure, but out on the borderland, in unexplored territory. . . the Enterprise was not exactly on a pleasure cruise to friendly ports of call.
And in the 23rd century, you have Rigelian fever, mind-altering viruses, aging diseases, etc. Heck, the whole crew nearly died from a fever outbreak aboard the ship in "Requiem for Methuselah" . . . .
To quote Doctor McCoy: "Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
Yes, but most of these diseases can be reversed in minutes with a hypo-spray. No such luck when you got beriberi in the middle of the ocean and it's the 16th century.
Not necessarily. Common diseases, sure, but the rare exotic ones were still a threat in Kirk's time. I mean, look at "Requiem" again. That was a life-threatening medical emergency to the entire ship, not a minor nuisance to be cured with a few quick shots.
And, especially in the third season, the Enterprise was often dispatched to deliver vital medicines to some remote colony that was suffering from some ghastly epidemic or another, as well as exotic fungi that wiped out entire food supplies, etc. Plagues and famine seemed practically commonplace.
The Final Frontier was never supposed to this safe, orderly, well-civilized place where everything was under control. Maybe back on Earth, sure, but out on the borderland, in unexplored territory. . . the Enterprise was not exactly on a pleasure cruise to friendly ports of call.
Yes, I know that they resorted a lot to these desperate situations but that's because delivering medication for a condition that's only mildly irritating wouldn't be very interesting.
"Hurry up, Enterprise! This thing itches like crazy!!"
Yes, I know that they resorted a lot to these desperate situations but that's because delivering medication for a condition that's only mildly irritating wouldn't be very interesting.
"Hurry up, Enterprise! This thing itches like crazy!!"
Exactly. You never want to make things too easy for your characters. So people die and get sick and get their hearts broken because that's just more dramatic than a routine mission where nothing goes wrong and it's not a matter of life or death.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to kill someone. Plus what would really make the show interesting is if once in a while, you killed a member of the senior staff. I think people are just too used to the fact that some members of the crew never die, no matter what. Well, what if they did?
Yes, I know that they resorted a lot to these desperate situations but that's because delivering medication for a condition that's only mildly irritating wouldn't be very interesting.
"Hurry up, Enterprise! This thing itches like crazy!!"
Exactly. You never want to make things too easy for your characters. So people die and get sick and get their hearts broken because that's just more dramatic than a routine mission where nothing goes wrong and it's not a matter of life or death.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to kill someone. Plus what would really make the show interesting is if once in a while, you killed a member of the senior staff. I think people are just too used to the fact that some members of the crew never die, no matter what. Well, what if they did?Yes, I know that they resorted a lot to these desperate situations but that's because delivering medication for a condition that's only mildly irritating wouldn't be very interesting.
"Hurry up, Enterprise! This thing itches like crazy!!"
Exactly. You never want to make things too easy for your characters. So people die and get sick and get their hearts broken because that's just more dramatic than a routine mission where nothing goes wrong and it's not a matter of life or death.
True, but there's no particular reason to avoid it either, especially if you're trying to amp up the tension and jeopardy.
(By coincidence, I'm writing a Klingon attack sequence today and, yeah, there's already been one fatality.)
And like I said, ENT stopped doing that in the start of season 3. There was a problem, yes, but they fixed it. It's valid to criticize someone for an uncorrected problem, but if they do address it, if they do learn from their mistakes and go on to do better, then there's no point in dwelling on the past.
Part of the issue, of course, is that you don't want your antagonists and menaces to come off as paper tigers. You can only talk for so long about how dangerous something might be, or have your bad guys rattling their sabers and making threats, before you have to deliver if you want to give the threat some teeth . . . .
Make every death count.
All action and scifi shows have some kind of 'Magic bubble of protection' around the main characters, or at least the most likable main characters. This is unavoidable because you don't want to lose your best talent just for a more dramatic ending to an episode. I think Sopranos even fell into that problem, they created a lot of great dramatic moments with main character deaths and were left at the end with far less talent than they began with. 24 even more so.
The problem is when the 'Magic bubble of protection' becomes too obvious, it dispels the tension in all threatening situations because you know everything is just going to work out. You really have to dial the 'Bubble' to somewhere in the middle so situations still seem threatening but you're not wasting talent.
Shows have taken different strategies to calibrate the bubble. Star Trek usually uses the 'Redshirting' approach. Voyager in season two and Stargate in generally created a lot of minor recurring characters and had them killed off, so the audience would have an emotional reaction but you wouldn't lose any main talent. Lost was kind of clever in that they had a huge cycling cast of characters, but kept the main core of Jack/Kate/Sawyer/Hurley/Locke/Ben firmly within the bubble, so they could kill off lots of characters but never the most important ones.
Long running procedurals tend to take the approach of just having characters die dramatically when their contract expires.
The problem is when the 'Magic bubble of protection' becomes too obvious, it dispels the tension in all threatening situations because you know everything is just going to work out. You really have to dial the 'Bubble' to somewhere in the middle so situations still seem threatening but you're not wasting talent.
Shows have taken different strategies to calibrate the bubble. Star Trek usually uses the 'Redshirting' approach. Voyager in season two and Stargate in generally created a lot of minor recurring characters and had them killed off, so the audience would have an emotional reaction but you wouldn't lose any main talent. Lost was kind of clever in that they had a huge cycling cast of characters, but kept the main core of Jack/Kate/Sawyer/Hurley/Locke/Ben firmly within the bubble, so they could kill off lots of characters but never the most important ones.
Long running procedurals tend to take the approach of just having characters die dramatically when their contract expires.
You know, it's an old trick to hire people for the sole purpose of firing them in front of everyone so they'll get their acts together. Maybe they should hire people (without telling them of course) that would seem to be main characters but with the idea of killing them at strategic moments to increase the drama.
True.
Today's shows will invest a lot of writing and screen time for a character, just to kill them off suddenly, but it works.
Killing off red-shirts and special background characters has gotten tired and stale. Where's the sense of danger if you know the main characters are going to come out all right all the time. Most of the time not even a scratch.
And heroic deaths stopped working too-- Trip's and Data's deaths really had no impact from what most fans think.
Plus Data and Dax had the standard backup trick (look alikes, or copies, so they really don't die).
The hero bubble is no longer going to work as easy anymore.
Similar threads
