• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

I'm not sure about the designers because it's not something I follow. But every woman in our culture, including designers, has been raised with certain expectations and assumptions. Decades of feminism have helped, but watch The Bachelor/ette or any number of TV commercials and you'll see that some things have not changed.

Say what you will but Women's clothing still does not have decent pockets.
 
Must be because they have purses to compensate for lack of pockets.
That's supposedly why, but there are plenty of times I'd rather not carry a purse. When I was a teen and traveled much lighter, everything I needed went into my jeans pockets and I didn't even own a purse.
 
"Never run with... scissors."
Colonel Jack O'Neill
"MATERNAL INSTINCT", STARGATE SG-1

(Pretty sure it was that episode.)

I know that in the movie the Colonel's son killed himself with his gun, which traumatized the Colonel deeply. I don't know if it's the case in the series though as the character doesn't exhibit the same signs of shall we say... PTSD as in the movie.
 
So, we’re still discussing fashion then?

Yes.

That's supposedly why, but there are plenty of times I'd rather not carry a purse. When I was a teen and traveled much lighter, everything I needed went into my jeans pockets and I didn't even own a purse.

It's interesting that Star Trek, often, portrays a future with no pockets. It boggles the mind when, in our time, everyone carries a little device with them at all times, and usually a couple other things (keys, wallet).

Keys will be going away soon, and wallets are being replaced by those devices (cell phones), but it's hard to imagine how the cell phone will disappear. There are lots of times in Star Trek in which pockets would be beneficial, but it seems that Starfleet enforces a no-pocket mandate.
 
It's interesting that Star Trek, often, portrays a future with no pockets. It boggles the mind when, in our time, everyone carries a little device with them at all times, and usually a couple other things (keys, wallet).

This is why I liked the Enterprise uniforms. They just looked comfortable and they had pockets. I also wish B'Elanna had kept the metal pocket she had.
 
I know that in the movie the Colonel's son killed himself with his gun, which traumatized the Colonel deeply. I don't know if it's the case in the series though as the character doesn't exhibit the same signs of shall we say... PTSD as in the movie.

Same as the series, since it is referenced multiple times. SG-1's O'Neill simply uses humor a lot, something insisted upon by Richard Dean Anderson. But when his son is mentioned, he definitely shows the PTSD.
 
Yes.



It's interesting that Star Trek, often, portrays a future with no pockets. It boggles the mind when, in our time, everyone carries a little device with them at all times, and usually a couple other things (keys, wallet).

Keys will be going away soon, and wallets are being replaced by those devices (cell phones), but it's hard to imagine how the cell phone will disappear. There are lots of times in Star Trek in which pockets would be beneficial, but it seems that Starfleet enforces a no-pocket mandate.
Geordi had pockets when the Romulans brainwashed him. That's where he kept his phaser.
 
The better solution are pockets with zippers and/or cover flaps.

The most impractical are the Romulan pockets, the ones where they put their phasers. have you seen them?

Star-Trek-Deep-Space-Nine-Romulan-Disruptor-Pistol-Holster-1.jpg
 
In Spock Must Die!, James Blish’s version of Scotty had some opinions about pockets:
“Aye, I feared as much. An’ it’s oft before, lang an’ lang, that I’ve cursed the designer who thought it’d be cute to put no pockets in these uniforms.”​
Back on TOS, Kevin Riley seems to have pockets.
8dPO2Lp.jpg

An Irishman’s prerogative, no doubt.
 
In Monte-Carlo, the croupiers don't have pockets but I suspect it's to eliminate the temptation to steal some of the enormous amounts of money that are exchanged around them... I guess it's more symbolic than anything else as these people are most likely watched closely and they couldn't get away with stealing anything. Nothing is harder than to steal from the rich and powerful, especially when you're not.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top