If only you could type his name into a machine and have that sort of information appear.
1960's and risqué clothes?
- Thread starter Nakita Akita
- Start date
"Second seasons usually mean a little more money in the budget, and Theiss hopes some of this surplus will find its way to the wardrobe department. In the planning stages are more coveralls, more civilian clothing, and perhaps more skirts for the women and men. "Having the actresses and actors both in skirts was to diffuse any sexist accusations that might have been associated with designs from the old show. It's also fashionably probable 400 years from now that men would wear skants. Even so, there was usually a problem on the set," he admits, "because some wisecracks were always made." Theiss emphasizes that he wants the wearers of his creations to be at ease with what he designs. "I won't force an actor or actress to wear something they're not at least 80 percent comfortable with."
-Bill Theiss, taken from http://www.startrekpropauthority.com/2008/05/bill-theiss-lost-interview-rare.html
it's a good interview. He had some very deep thoughts about the unifoms and other outfits from the show, and had a tremendously difficult job to do.
-Bill Theiss, taken from http://www.startrekpropauthority.com/2008/05/bill-theiss-lost-interview-rare.html
it's a good interview. He had some very deep thoughts about the unifoms and other outfits from the show, and had a tremendously difficult job to do.
It doesn’t, but if we are gonna talk about the motivations of those responsible for clothing choices, I doubt Theiss was interested in perving on their inhabitants. Shock audience sure, but I doubt he was being a sleaze about it.
Whilst your underlying point about peer pressure is sound, those are not slut outfits.
Also, see Mister Motivator.
I could see something like a Senegal kaftan type tunic becoming the basic form of dress hundreds of years in the future. It's practical and looks good. We've been stuck, at least in men's fashion, for about 200 years now since Beau Brummel more or less came up with the modern suit. It's surprising that it has lasted so long.
It’s the arseholarchy. They are behind ties.
I just live discounting someone’s opinion/experience because of their sex/gender.
Oh.
Hang on, no I don’t.
Carry on.
Who didn't what? The women on TOS who were eye candy didn't agree to it? How do we know that?
You should absolutely wear whatever you're comfortable with. Perhaps a switch to another gym was in order?
Okay, why are these outfits slutty?
At first blush, it's not obvious that these are slutty outfits. I note that there is no cleavage showing nor any bare midriffs to be seen (more's the pity). They don't seem overly tight either. Although...
...I can see here that this top layer thing acts like a thong, the under layer is really tight, and that Troi's butt cheeks are separated and accented. Is that why they're slutty? They accent the butt cheeks?
You should absolutely wear whatever you're comfortable with. Perhaps a switch to another gym was in order?
Okay, why are these outfits slutty?
At first blush, it's not obvious that these are slutty outfits. I note that there is no cleavage showing nor any bare midriffs to be seen (more's the pity). They don't seem overly tight either. Although...
...I can see here that this top layer thing acts like a thong, the under layer is really tight, and that Troi's butt cheeks are separated and accented. Is that why they're slutty? They accent the butt cheeks?
The outfits kind of date the scene to the 1980s or thereabouts. Women exercising on camera in these skintight getups was huge during the period TNG was made. TNG and the other spinoffs are at their best when they're timeless, and this is not.
Oh, I think they're silly. The question is why they're slutty.
They wouldn't have been my first choice of workout clothes but they weren't in any way slutty. I assume that being tight gave them the designation?
I think we can safely say that both men and women have different opinions on the mini. It could be sexy and liberating to some and a pain in the ass to others. Some men loved it, others didn't. The problem is when women were stuck wearing them when they didn't want to do so. It's adding insult to injury to then catch grief for not being "liberated" by being uncomfortable wearing one. Get with the times, you prude!
And seeing a woman on a ship crawling so that the panties/briefs/whatever the fuck you want to call them could be seen, or the occasional glimpse of Uhura's in a scene was just unprofessional. Undies - even outerwear undies, belong UNDER. Having a few extra inches of skirt/dress wouldn't have killed them.
Back in the very early 1980s, our boss took us to some chain restaurant for lunch. I was new to Florida and had never heard of the place and the name escapes me. The waitresses wore regular polyester-type tops common of the era (for waitresses) but instead of the long polyester slacks that usually accompanied them, they wore white ruffled panties (of thicker material than regular panties) but they looked like infant rumba panties. This was a regular restaurant too, not some strip joint.
After my shock wore off (where are their real pants?) I was pretty mad. Talk about objectifying women. And I was furious at our boss for bringing women there. I would have walked out had I been with anyone else. He was a colossal douche anyhow.
I think we can safely say that both men and women have different opinions on the mini. It could be sexy and liberating to some and a pain in the ass to others. Some men loved it, others didn't. The problem is when women were stuck wearing them when they didn't want to do so. It's adding insult to injury to then catch grief for not being "liberated" by being uncomfortable wearing one. Get with the times, you prude!
And seeing a woman on a ship crawling so that the panties/briefs/whatever the fuck you want to call them could be seen, or the occasional glimpse of Uhura's in a scene was just unprofessional. Undies - even outerwear undies, belong UNDER. Having a few extra inches of skirt/dress wouldn't have killed them.
Back in the very early 1980s, our boss took us to some chain restaurant for lunch. I was new to Florida and had never heard of the place and the name escapes me. The waitresses wore regular polyester-type tops common of the era (for waitresses) but instead of the long polyester slacks that usually accompanied them, they wore white ruffled panties (of thicker material than regular panties) but they looked like infant rumba panties. This was a regular restaurant too, not some strip joint.
After my shock wore off (where are their real pants?) I was pretty mad. Talk about objectifying women. And I was furious at our boss for bringing women there. I would have walked out had I been with anyone else. He was a colossal douche anyhow.
If you aren't aware by now of the many reports of Roddenberry's behaviour on set and how he treated women then I suggest you google it. It's not exactly uncommon knowledge.
I think they are called French Knickers, and as a man, I have never understood the appeal. *shrug*
The existence of places like this (and hooters, and to an extent things like maid cafes in Japan) has always...bemused? Confused? Definitely a thing involving pointing and laughing at them as bizarre cultural artefacts (and the whole Coyote Ugly thing in the late nineties. I mean some people I knew back then...who were women...loved the idea of working in such places, so clearly it’s horses for courses...but. Huh.) with that discomfort of the ugly side lurking just beneath the surface. (Hooters popped up again recently in relation to a Toyota and a Toy Yoda.)
On the one hand, they *are* a symbol of a sexually liberal society (or in Japan’s case, a bloody confused one...they also have host bars, so a crazy kind of equality lurks through the looking glass.) but on the other, they really symbolise an oppression. But.... it really varies insanely on a case by case basis. It’s argument far from being solved. In this case though.... Us teen boys (pulling my younger self through time for a moment) will fancy the waitress, possibly bringing return custom, even if she’s wearing overalls and boots (in some cases, possibly because of the overalls and boots.) there’s no need to be tasteless. Is it necessary to objectify people literally serving you? Nah. Makes your culture look ridiculous.
Perhaps I can squint and see the justification when the women (or men in some cases) are in on the joke, but it’s really too hard to see the line. All uniform policies and some hiring policies are a bit controlling, I mean Disney make their staff dress up in fetishising wear for furries and hardcore Star Wars fans, but it’s something that really needs a little more taste applied.
His behaviour around that with Ilia...whilst restrained on many respects...is completely nanas. He really did grow up in a different Hollywood, and while he may not have been as sleazy as some, he certainly didn’t evolve with the times much.
But it's not like he was working in isolation. He would have been given expectations and guidelines by producers and feedback as they saw his work.
Thing is, for me, we may have moved on as a society in the meantime but the concept of men simply being respectful to women isn't new. What that means in practise has changed dramatically but a great deal of the behaviour we hear about was never acceptable. Chivalry may seem patriarchal and patronising now but it was a standard that was considered very desirable at the time. It was called being a gentleman.
I'll accept the case that we shouldn't judge Roddenberry by modern standards, which many argue in his defence, but that doesn't address the observation that his behaviour didn't meet the standards of his time either.
He was neither woke nor chivalrous, he was boorish and that was frowned on then every bit as much as it is now.
Damn straight. I think I saw someone complains about the ‘man walks near the road’ thing as sexist on Twitter. I almost commented, because it’s such an arsehole thing to call sexist. (For those that don’t know, it comes from Tudor streets having overhangs on the building, so if anyone gets hit by an emptying piss bucket, it’s the dude, and if anything nasty comes in from the road, again it’s the dude that gets it.) literally ‘being a gentleman’ is now oppressive.
Taking that back to Gene, I am not gonna blame the guy for getting his head spun around by what to him were exotic women (Armenian I believe, and remember...exotic is relative, and the genetics of attraction mean it’s sometimes a factor.) but I would blame him for being an absolute dick about it. To paraphrase the beach boys, he wished they could all be Armenian girls, and he had somehow decided the ones he met at a wild party (with wild behaviour) were standard bearers for an entire nation and should be for an entire gender.
Mind you, we are all expected to be Hugh Grant, Gerard Butler or Jason Statham; só humans are effing weird. I’d aim for being Jude Law, but hear he can be a bit of a git.
Dude was whacko.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
