1960's and risqué clothes?

I think FL means that Chekov was the only one whose Search for Spock wardrobe didn't carry through into The Voyage Home because it wasn't considered to look good enough. Although the crew spent three months on Vulcan, so you'd think they all would've had changes of clothes available.

 

This is the general idea. Walter Koenig said at a convention that his wearing pink in San Francisco could be misinterpreted, so they changed his costume... to leather. I didn't care much either way, myself. I got the idea in-universe that whatever they wore on Vulcan, they needed to bring the clothes they wore to Vulcan back with them, and it was easiest to just wear them home (except Chekov, of course).

 

Actors often have a lot of say over their own costumes, makeup, and hair styling. Even supporting guest cast on a TV series are generally given some choices in the wardrobe department.

As a first-tier supporting actor in a film, and someone they weren't about to get rid of, Walter could have asserted himself and said "This doesn't look good to me." Instead, he obviously took a passive approach, whether through timidity or laziness. That is why he ended up in the foppish, "Buster Brown" collar in Star Trek III. That and Leonard Nimoy either not caring what Chekov looked like, or having taste as bad as the costume designer (meaning pretty bad; even Shatner's civilian suit looks terrible, and none of the civvies in the film look cool at all).

From what I read, when Koenig's ridiculously high collar showed up in the dailies, a studio executive ordered them to get rid of it. So it disappears from the rest of his scenes.

 

Sulu's civilian outfit looked okay.

 

I agree, now that you mention it. And I'm very sure George spared no effort in Wardrobe, getting his way and making sure his character would look cool. He had a healthy vanity going as an actor, and at least once used the term "Sulu-esque" (!) to mean dashing and heroic. I think he was talking about using his leather jacket as a sweeping cape in ST III. That's what he was focused on, the cosmetic, and he got cosmetic results. And that's better than nothing; he wasn't wrong to try to look good.

 

Sulu's uninhibited self, according to "The Naked Time", is the dashing, heroic D'Artagnan - who wears a cape. Why shouldn't he dress to please himself off-duty? I thought the costume was stylish.

I know some people in the SCA who enjoy wearing capes and tunics in their mundane (non-SCA) lives. Mind you, those are constructed to be useful, not merely ornamental.

 

Look I'm not saying Koenig's outfit was good but they tried something. It didn't work out.
Look at other 80s movies. The clothes are pretty bad.
Look at TMP. Do you think the actors wanted those tight-fitting outfits?. But maybe they wanted to show off their assets.

 

My actor friends all love a good cape to swirl and flourish.

 

What's funny about this is that all those civilian clothes were off the rack at LA department stores. They may have put some of them together in strange combinations, but they were all 1980s designs.

I just wonder how many different colored copies of that suit McCoy had in his closet. We saw at least two in TWOK and SFS.

 

Both TSFS and TVH could only have been improved if George Takei were stripped to the waist and oiled up.

And you all know it.

 

I hate it when women are objectified so not to be sexist I have to say No.

Come to think of it there was very little objectifying of either men or women in the original series Movies apart from the Illya robot and the fan dance.

 

I'm not an actor but I'd love a cape for these very reasons!

 

If someone shows up in a movie scantily clad, does that automatically mean they're being objectified?

 

It depends on the context and approach. Are they scantily clad by their own choice, for their own purposes? Is it in a situation where being scantily clad makes sense and is socially appropriate (e.g. on the beach or in the bedroom), or one where it makes no sense in context and is just being done to titillate the audience (e.g. while fighting crime or battling monsters)? Does the camera ogle their anatomy or approach the scene matter-of-factly? Is the scantily clad person the one with greater/equal power or lesser power in the scene?

And it does depend on gender, since systemic sexism means that it's not symmetrical. Women are culturally victimized and stigmatized for their sexuality in ways that men are not, so if a male character and a female character have their bodies shown off equally, there's still often a power imbalance in the male character's favor due to the broader cultural context.

 

Never noticed anything special about the extras in the TMP scene. It was after all a G rated movie.

 

There were scantily clad San Francisco denizens in TMP? Huh? (I'm learning a lot in this thread - I think!)

 

Not too much so:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd0222.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd0233.jpg

 

Er - okay? Those women are wearing skirts about the length of those shown in every episode of Star Trek.

I'm highly confused. Perhaps that reference was meant as a joke.

 

But made of more diaphanous material in some cases. Look at the woman on the far left in the second image I posted -- I think I can see a nipple, though I might be imagining it.

I think Therin is just paying more attention to a subtle background detail than most viewers would while watching the scene. It's there, but it's not called attention to. Which means I don't think Therin is correct to call it objectifying. It's too casual for that.