I'm glad you weren't writing for BSG, or we would never had that scene with a 57 year old bald Mary McDonald in bed with a 62 year old craggy faced icon one would sooner expect on Mt Rushmore than in playgirl.
Is there anyone who doesn't like Seven??
- Thread starter Itachi
- Start date
They really went against the TV cliche with that one - all that time that Roslin had beautiful long hair and looked great: no sex. Finally, when Roslin finally gets a sex scene with Adama, it's when she is in final stages of cancer, and McDonnell is wearing a bald cap to make her look like a patient receiving hemotherapy!
Agreed.
Great vid for a great character, and for those who don't know the scene I was referring to, its at 2:22.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkvD8sl4cEg&feature=related
Great vid for a great character, and for those who don't know the scene I was referring to, its at 2:22.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkvD8sl4cEg&feature=related
They really went against the TV cliche with that one - all that time that Roslin had beautiful long hair and looked great: no sex. Finally, when Roslin finally gets a sex scene with Adama, it's when she is in final stages of cancer, and McDonnell is wearing a bald cap to make her look like a patient receiving hemotherapy!
As part of a character-driven plot though it made sense as ironic as it was. The two characters started out at odds then came to respect then eventually love one another. There was nothing Harlequin about it. It wasn't about titillation but rather advancing the story.
That's the difference, imo in how sexuality is depicted in Trek vs some other sci-fi shows like nuBSG.
None of this addresses the mostly still male audience of Trek wasn't interested in seeing Janeway in a bedroom scene. So dispite whatever small protest there is about it, the larger part of the fanbase didn't want it. I explained it very clearly when comparing Shatner now to Shatner during TOS and how very few are screaming for an old shirtless Kirk over young shirtless Kirk.^ Eh, it's not like she was going to be buck naked. Lying in a bed covered in a sheet wouldn't show more than she already did when she was lying in a bathtub in 'The Q and the Grey'. Apparently, TPTB didn't think that that was "OMG LOLZ YUK GROSS" because of her body, so I don't see why they would suddenly think that about a post-coital scene.
But you have nothing against Harlequin romance if, say, Jeri Ryan is in it?
How does the age of actors relate to the genre of erotica/romance? Please enlighten me. How does an older actress in a sex scene equate 'Harlequin romance'?
I hate to point out the obvious, but the depiction of sex and/or romance on screen is what the directors, writers and producers decide it would be. If you want to shoot a Harlequin romance, you may shoot it and hire a couple of pretty 20 year olds to act it on screen. You may as well, if you want, hire a couple of 80 year olds and shoot scenes with them having rough sex on dining room desk in a retirement home, with the woman shouting "Ride me hard, cowboy". (I bet there's an independent / art house movie somewhere with a scene like that. I bet there's also a porn movie somewhere with the same kind of scene.)
That's purely subjective, and you don't know and can't prove if it was "meant to be" unless you have a statement by the writers and director "We wanted it to be gross".
But that's beside the point, since the real question is, if the audience can't handle the idea of an older woman having a sex life, did the sky fall off, were the audiences rioting in front of Paramount studios, were there angry calls and mass protests?
the reaction of Kai Winn sleeping with Gul Dukat can be proven by just polling the audience.
Sorry but it's just that simple.
Last edited:
Do you have any numbers to back that up? Because the point many have been trying to make in this thread is that most of the audience - male or female - is well-adjusted enough to not be squeamish about it. The popularity of pairings after nuBSG such as Adama/Roslin seem to bear that out. The producers went on a incorrect assumption that their main audience was adolescent boys living in their parents' basement who would not want to see "mom" having sex. I believe they were wrong but since I have no numbers I'm stating it as an opinion, not a fact. Where are your numbers?
Where are yours?
Older actresses from Goldie Hawn to Kate Mulgrew all talk about how young actresses get more press and roles because that's what is geared toward the audience.(Remember how Goldie was a sex symbol when she was younger? Remember when she was the half naked "Sock It Too Me" girl on Laugh In?) It's been that way for decades, even as we were kids. Why else did a talentless Bo Derek get more press than actresses older and more talented than she? The proof has always been right in fornt of you on every magazine cover. It's why Britney Spears being half naked in her videos gets more press than Christina Agularia just simply singing. It's why Madonna got international stardom showing her ass & Cyndi Lauper who is more vocally talented didn't. It's why Madonna is seen as embarrassing now because she's older and still trying to parade around half naked. The common comment is: she's too old. How much press did Amada/Roslin recieve? A small percentage in a fanbase doesn't dictate to what the mass public goes for. There are far more well adjusted folks world wide other than just producers that that have no desire to see their "mom" having sex. I deep concerns about about those that do.
It's not just adolencent boys. Most men love seeing hot younger women over older ones. The producers know this, it's why Eva Langoria gets way more press over all her other female co-stars and why for a time they were jealous of her for it. It goes way beyond Trek, nuBSG & it's producers. This is what the mass public has made of it because it's what people do & don't respond too. This is even so in the real world. Most folks are aware that the even the dating scene becomes harder once you reach 40 and over.
Last edited:
So, you're saying that Trek writers and producers decide what they will be featured on the show according to what they think the majority of viewers want or don't want to see?
I am curious, did they poll the audience before every major storyline and decision? Is Star Trek just a collection of things aimed at pleasing the viewers? Do they write scripts by listing the audience wishes that they need to fulfill in each episode? ("A: an explosion B: get Seven naked C: some comedy D: a speech about humanity that's supposed to make fans feel like they're watching something that's, like, deep and stuff... we'll come up with the details later") Is that why there seem to be no gay or bisexual men in Trek (and hardly any gay or bisexual women, apart from the eeevil ones in the Mirror Universe)?
In that case, there's only one conclusion to draw: it is a completely conformist, backwards franchise with no artistic merit or social relevance.
Sorry, but it is just that simple.
Did they poll the audience on whether they wanted to see a black woman or a Russian on the bridge of Enterprise? I doubt it. Or is that just the policy of modern Trek? Or modern Trek on UPN?
P.S. The reaction of most fans I'm aware of to Winn/Dukat is that it was a stupid storyline and the Pah-wraiths/magic book stuff made no sense. It's just that simple.
Of course it is, who are these TV shows made for?So, you're saying that Trek writers and producers decide what they will be featured on the show according to what they think the majority of viewers want or don't want to see?
They aren't made exclusively for just them but rather for the general mass public.
So are you saying Trek is supposed to be superior & highbrow because some feel it contains some social relevance in some eps.? So did the end of every He-Man, She-Ra & G.I.Joe cartoon as do many sitcoms. Trek is a Tv show meant first & for most as entertainment. Having a Black woman or Russian on Trek didn't meant shit, TOS was still cancelled twice because it didn't appeal to the general audience. It took years of repeats and the start of Trek Cons. to create Treks cult status. BTW, Jadzia Dax was hinted at being bi-sexual. If she wasn't Worf wouldn't have been suspicious of her having an affair w/ Vanessa Williams.
P.S., how does your comment/opinion about Winn/Dukat relate to age bias? I didn't ask about the opinion of the story but rather the tone they were going for in setting up the pairing.
Last edited:
I just want to say I find Roxann Biggs-Dawson hotter than Jeri Ryan. And for some reason, I think Roxann is hotter with her Klingon hair and ridges!
So, you're saying that Trek writers and producers decide what they will be featured on the show according to what they think the majority of viewers want or don't want to see?
Absolutely. All television shows operate according to what they think the audience wants. No, they don't poll the audience directly, they rely on Nielsen viewers to do their work for them.
When you're selected as a Nielsen viewer, you provide demographic information as well as what you've watched. The stats are produced from there.
Demographics in television came of age in the 1980s. "Thirtysomething" was the first hit series that targeted a specific demographic--in that case, baby boomers.
After that, networks and studios realized they had something that would make it easier to develop and market series.
And TV has gotten (IMO) duller and duller since.
Please note, I'm talking about network television here because Voyager was on a network. Syndicated series and cable programs are more free to follow artistic visions.
LOL So a show has to be "highbrow" to feature a gay man, a a middle-aged woman/woman who doesn't look like a supermodel who actually has a sex life, or anything that a stereotypical male adolescent might not be crazy about?
Curzon had an affair with Williams' character, the only reason why Dax's (not Jadzia's) "bisexuality" was there was because Dax had been a man in the previous life. Same thing with Lenara.
And again - two females can kiss, but apparently every male can only be 100% straight.
It doesn't. It relates to what most fans think about the storyline, which you brought up.
Their intention, as quoted on Memory Alpha, was to bring two villains together.
What tone? And how does it relate to the age bias?
BTW the huge majority of fans think that Chakotay/Seven was an awful pairing. Was that the intention? And does it mean that TV shows shouldn't be pairing up 30-year old women with 40-year old men?
Demographics. Fox canceled "Firefly" to put on "Joe Millionaire" because of demogrphics and their interpretation as how best to make a buck.
I say Whedon should have sent Buffy after the studio execs!
I say Whedon should have sent Buffy after the studio execs!
How does anything you've addressed have to do with it age bias?LOL So a show has to be "highbrow" to feature a gay man, a a middle-aged woman/woman who doesn't look like a supermodel who actually has a sex life, or anything that a stereotypical male adolescent might not be crazy about?
Curzon had an affair with Williams' character, the only reason why Dax's (not Jadzia's) "bisexuality" was there was because Dax had been a man in the previous life. Same thing with Lenara.
And again - two females can kiss, but apparently every male can only be 100% straight.
It doesn't. It relates to what most fans think about the storyline, which you brought up.
Their intention, as quoted on Memory Alpha, was to bring two villains together.
What tone? And how does it relate to the age bias?
Not one thing you've spoke on has anything to do with TV production and the general mostly male demographic Trek has or how it relates to age bias, which is the main thing being debated.
They had to bring in Jeri Taylor to help a production & writing staff of mostly men to understand how to write a woman captain. When you grasp that, you'll might come to understand why two women can kiss and male homosexuality isn't addressed.
FOX never had any faith in "Firefly" to being with.Demographics. Fox canceled "Firefly" to put on "Joe Millionaire" because of demogrphics and their interpretation as how best to make a buck.
I say Whedon should have sent Buffy after the studio execs!
You don't put a sci-fi drama aimed at a 20-40 demographic on a Friday night. Execs. know damn well the majority of folks in that age group don't stay home on Friday nights. They wanted it to fail from the start.
How does anything you've addressed have to do with it age bias?LOL So a show has to be "highbrow" to feature a gay man, a a middle-aged woman/woman who doesn't look like a supermodel who actually has a sex life, or anything that a stereotypical male adolescent might not be crazy about?
Curzon had an affair with Williams' character, the only reason why Dax's (not Jadzia's) "bisexuality" was there was because Dax had been a man in the previous life. Same thing with Lenara.
And again - two females can kiss, but apparently every male can only be 100% straight.
It doesn't. It relates to what most fans think about the storyline, which you brought up.
Their intention, as quoted on Memory Alpha, was to bring two villains together.
What tone? And how does it relate to the age bias?
Not one thing you've spoke on has anything to do with TV production and the general mostly male demographic Trek has or how it relates to age bias, which is the main thing being debated.
Ummmm... in case you haven't noticed, everything I said relates to your insistence that Trek should be pandering to an age bias.
My points:
1) the networks tend to think that their audience consists of idiots;
2) they think that SciFi audience consists of idiots who possess a mentality of a stereotypical male adolescent, who only want to see explosions, BOOBZ and girl-on-girl action, and are so immature that they can't handle such things as the existence of male homosexuality, or the idea of their moms are having sex, and would run away screaming if they ever were reminded of these facts of life on screen;
3) allowing a network to decide what you can and can't have on the show according to the above-mentioned guidelines (i.e. what they expect the viewers, presumed to be idiots, would or wouldn't like, could or couldn't stand) is lame and gutless and usually results in lame, bland and gutless TV. If you're already thinking along those guidelines, well, there's no hope that you'll make anything but lame, bland and gutless TV.
4) In some cases, such meddling is hilariously stupid. Example: I really don't believe that there would be significant numbers of VOY viewers who would feel so offended, grossed out or traumatized by the sight of Janeway's bare shoulder that they would have immediately decided "oh no! I can't watch this show anymore! Oh HORROR, HORROR!"
I guess I should have stopped watching BSG in horror the moment I saw shirtless Bill Adama in "Resurrection Ship", since I certainly didn't think he looked good, and "it's not something I wanted to see". But, guess what, I couldn't care less and I realized that the scene wasn't meant to get me horny, it was meant to show Adama looking at his scar from the surgery, a reminder of his near death after the assassination attempt. I don't think that anyone else was bothered, either. I don't remember any viewers getting their knickers in a twist over seeing Adama and Roslin in bed, either - in fact, many people really liked that storyline and that scene. But OTOH, many, many fans really hated the love quadrangle between Starbuck, Apollo, Anders and Dualla - all young, fit, attractive people - and some even stopped watching the show because of it. Same thing with the love triangle/quadrangle on Lost. When people are so fed up with the show that they stop watching, it's usually because they hate certain storylines or characters, not because they've seen, for a minute or two, some bare flesh of someone they don't find attractive.
Oh gosh, what can that reason possibly be??? I am so confused!! I need you to explain it to me! It is such an enigma!
Yes, it produces lame, bland and gutless TV.
However, it's not a matter of "allowing." If TPTB were to say "no" to the network, then the network doesn't support the show and it goes off the air.
Both the studio (Paramount) and the network (UPN) had a say in what they wanted Voyager to be. It wasn't just up to Berman, Braga, Taylor et al. Nor was it up to the fans.
Could Voyager have taken more risks if it, like DS9, was syndicated? Most likely.
But it wasn't.
How does anything you've addressed have to do with it age bias?LOL So a show has to be "highbrow" to feature a gay man, a a middle-aged woman/woman who doesn't look like a supermodel who actually has a sex life, or anything that a stereotypical male adolescent might not be crazy about?
Curzon had an affair with Williams' character, the only reason why Dax's (not Jadzia's) "bisexuality" was there was because Dax had been a man in the previous life. Same thing with Lenara.
And again - two females can kiss, but apparently every male can only be 100% straight.
It doesn't. It relates to what most fans think about the storyline, which you brought up.
Their intention, as quoted on Memory Alpha, was to bring two villains together.
What tone? And how does it relate to the age bias?
Not one thing you've spoke on has anything to do with TV production and the general mostly male demographic Trek has or how it relates to age bias, which is the main thing being debated.
Ummmm... in case you haven't noticed, everything I said relates to your insistence that Trek should be pandering to an age bias.
My points:
1) the networks tend to think that their audience consists of idiots;
2) they think that SciFi audience consists of idiots who possess a mentality of a stereotypical male adolescent, who only want to see explosions, BOOBZ and girl-on-girl action, and are so immature that they can't handle such things as the existence of male homosexuality, or the idea of their moms are having sex, and would run away screaming if they ever were reminded of these facts of life on screen;
3) allowing a network to decide what you can and can't have on the show according to the above-mentioned guidelines (i.e. what they expect the viewers, presumed to be idiots, would or wouldn't like, could or couldn't stand) is lame and gutless and usually results in lame, bland and gutless TV.
4) In some cases it is also really stupid, since I really don't believe that there would be significant numbers of VOY viewers who would feel so offended, grossed out or traumatized by the sight of Janeway's bare shoulder that they would have immediately decided "oh no! I can't watch this show anymore! Oh HORROR, HORROR!"
I guess I should have stopped watching BSG in horror the moment I saw shirtless Bill Adama in "Resurrection Ship", since I certainly didn't think he looked good, and "it's not something I wanted to see". But, guess what, I couldn't care less and I realized that the scene wasn't meant to get me horny, it was meant to show Adama looking at his scar from the surgery, a reminder of his near death after the assassination attempt. I don't think that anyone else was bothered, either. I don't remember any viewers getting their knickers in a twist over seeing Adama and Roslin in bed, either - in fact, many people really liked that storyline and that scene. But OTOH, many, many fans really hated the love quadrangle between Starbuck, Apollo, Anders and Dualla - all young, fit, attractive people - and some even stopped watching the show because of it. Same thing with the love triangle/quadrangle on Lost. When people are so fed up with the show that they stop watching, it's usually because they hate certain storylines or characters, not because they've seen, for a minute or two, some bare flesh of someone they don't find attractive.
Oh gosh, what can that reason possibly be??? I am so confused!! I need you to explain it to me! It is such an enigma!
I guess we now know why what's said on message boards doesn't dictate what those business professionals at studios do.
I think Paramount Studios that has been around for decades and successfully produced thousands of TV shows & movies, are well aware of the proper choices to make to best benefit them and the majority of their audiences.
