They weren't. They were trying to target me: a 22-year-old male and a Trekkie. I was dead-center their intended demographic. They were trying to be sexy and titillating but I thought, even at the time, they missed the mark.
Those scenes didn't do much for me either, it must be said that both T'Pol and Sevens presence did help the shows though.They weren't. They were trying to target me: a 22-year-old male and a Trekkie. I was dead-center their intended demographic. They were trying to be sexy and titillating but I thought, even at the time, they missed the mark.
I don't mind Troi's outfits at the time because in hindsight it feels like it was PARTIALLY meant to break up the visual monotony of everyone having uniforms on the bridge. I'm sure sex appeal was the main factor though. However, Troi was supposed to be this exotic character, and along with her accent, it kind of fit. But if someone wants to criticize the cleavage outfits of Troi and say it was sexist or didn't make sense in certain aspects, I'll agree with them.
By the time of 7 of 9, and T'Pol, the eye-candy aspect felt more blatant. So I wasn't okay with that, but then again I wasn't a fan of Voyager or Enterprise either.
Yet for some curious reason only women wore those skin-tight catsuits. I have nothing against them per se, but then everyone has to wear them or it is just plain sexism.
Those scenes didn't do much for me either, it must be said that both T'Pol and Sevens presence did help the shows though.
This isn't TNG.
Yeah, I did find some parts of Voyager to be a bit boring, it was OK on first viewing because it was new but I don't think I have bothered to watch many of the episodes again since that first viewing except for the Borg, Species 8472/Hirogen and Krenim Temporal stuff.I can't speak for ENT, but I do think Seven of Nine really carried the fourth season of VOY. A lot of the best episodes after that also focused on her. But I'll call the seventh season more of a Doctor and Paris/Torres (a.k.a. "Parres") season.
I do wonder if a few "rough drafts" might have included a few swear words, knowing they'd be excised later.Plus, it's worth noting that not every discrepancy requires an "in-universe" explanation. Sometimes the real world explanation-- i.e. they couldn't have said "fuck" on the previous shows even if they'd wanted to--is more than enough.
Do we really need to hear "fuck" and "shit" in every episode? Will the next "pushing of boundary" be "cocksucker"?
At times. Mostly in early seasons.Well it's good you agree with me that the dialogue of TNG sounds different from the way actual people talked in the late 80s/early 90s.
I make no assumptions about you. However, I am noticing how the arguments come across. If I misread I apologize. I don't know you so can assume nothing about you personally.The difference is that you're making erroneous assumptions about me and misinterpreting the actual content of my posts, while succumbing to lazy generalizations.
Plus, it's worth noting that not every discrepancy requires an "in-universe" explanation. Sometimes the real world explanation-- i.e. they couldn't have said "fuck" on the previous shows even if they'd wanted to--is more than enough.
There was no CGI, bumpy-headed Klingons, female captains, or gay characaters on TOS because well, it was the sixties. Should all subsequent Trek shows have avoided such things simply for the sake of consistency and to avoid "jarring" old-time viewers? Of course not.
So why should the new, new shows avoid f-bombs for the same reason?
I think this is a good argument in general. But I think it avoids addressing the context of how language was used in TNG overall. For the majority of TNG they spoke in a very particular way, and even Fireproof acknowledges this. So it gives the viewer the impression that common strong profanity is out of vogue, and in addition, people overall speak in a more refined way. However, that seemed to be changing towards the end of TNG. I remember the crew seemed to loosen up a bit, like when they were discussing some boring speaker while aboard a shuttle craft, or Crusher getting frustrated at Barclay's sitcom-like neurotic behavior.Plus, it's worth noting that not every discrepancy requires an "in-universe" explanation. Sometimes the real world explanation-- i.e. they couldn't have said "fuck" on the previous shows even if they'd wanted to--is more than enough.
I don't think there was an intention to NOT include female captains or gay characters. I don't think Roddenberry or the producers were trying to get across that in the future women can't be captains or that gay people don't exist. However, I think regardless of the censorship of profanity at the time, the producers did seem to try to make the speaking style different from that of how regular people talked in 1987-1994.There was no CGI, bumpy-headed Klingons, female captains, or gay characaters on TOS because well, it was the sixties.
No. They do whatever they feel will make the show successful. It was a novelty to have a Star Trek future where the crew didn't constantly bicker like normal prime time television characters or speak in common slang.Should all subsequent Trek shows have avoided such things simply for the sake of consistency and to avoid "jarring" old-time viewers? Of course not.
At times. Mostly in early seasons.
I make no assumptions about you. However, I am noticing how the arguments come across. If I misread I apologize. I don't know you so can assume nothing about you personally.
The budget was actually pretty good for a show made in the 60's.Had the budget not been so tight back then, they would've surely included those things in the 60s already.
They pretty much said "no female captains" in the final TOS episode. And I believe there is a record of Roddenberry and later Berman squashing any attempts to include gay characters.don't think there was an intention to NOT include female captains or gay characters. I don't think Roddenberry or the producers were trying to get across that in the future women can't be captains or that gay people don't exist.
Language also evolves. The Federation going through a war would impact how people communicate. Especially for Starfleet.Thanks, I appreciate it.
I like the show and I think the more casual speaking style can come across as refreshing, although it took me a bit getting used to at first.
Yup. David Gerrold noted that.The budget was actually pretty good for a show made in the 60's.
They pretty much said "no female captains" in the final TOS episode. And I believe there is a record of Roddenberry and later Berman squashing any attempts to include gay characters.
The budget was actually pretty good for a show made in the 60's.
They pretty much said "no female captains" in the final TOS episode. And I believe there is a record of Roddenberry and later Berman squashing any attempts to include gay characters.
Here's a quote from Memory Alpha:In regards to gay characters, do you know if Roddenberry and Berman doing that based on their own prejudices or because they felt it was too risky commercially speaking?
Having coined him "a raging homophobe", the earlier quoted David Gerrold has unequivocally accused Berman of sabotaging the development of the unrealized Next Generation first season episode "Blood and Fire", an allegory on AIDS, featuring gay characters [26] As to the alleged homophobia of Berman, Mangels, Star Trek's only openly gay writer, has later observed, "I have never met Rick Berman, and he has never expressed any specific attitudes directly to me. That said, not one single actor, staff member, or Paramount employee has ever once defended him from charges of homophobia, and many have accused him of it. Berman was ultimately responsible for killing almost every pitch for gay characters, and in interviews, was mealy-mouthed and waffling about the need for GLBT representation. At the very least, he was gutless and didn't care about GLBT representation. From the information and evidence I've seen, heard, and read, I believe that Berman is the reason we never saw gays on Star Trek." [27](X) Mangels' "waffling"-statement referred, among others, to a December 2002 interview Berman had given to USAToday.com, commenting on the matter, "That was really the wishful thinking of some people who were constantly at us. But we don't see heterosexual couples holding hands on the show, so it would be somewhat dishonest of us to see two gay men or lesbians holding hands."
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.