Yes but hardly skorts.
1960's and risqué clothes?
- Thread starter Nakita Akita
- Start date
No, of course not. They're more like leotards with skirt flaps attached -- basically like culottes but shorter. "Miniskorts," you could say. But not panties.
Don't take the word "shorts" that I used too literally. They were obviously legless. Maybe Grace meant the panties were built in. I think she would know if the dress and panties were separate or a one-piece. And she said "they were skorts." Maybe there were different versions of the costume at different times.
One of the strangest and least flattering shots of the dress came in "Balance of Terror":
http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x14hd/balanceofterrorhd590.jpg
I don't even know what to make of this as to the sewing structure, or as to whether it was intentional (to be sexy) or just a wardrobe malfunction that made air.
I'd go with panties built in as that appears to be what we see.
I think it's a wardrobe malfunction.
Briefs built in. Briefs are not panties.
Wikipedia says they were cheer briefs and Wikipedia's never wrong 
Saying that dies anyone really know. Obviously Grace would know but what did she actually say?
My daughter wears a skort to school. More like Arial Shaw length and the short part has a small length leg to it. So if her skort length was as short as Uhura's dress on Star Trek my daughters shorts part of the short would look like cheer briefs.
As a skort with a separate top it is manageable but if it were built into a dress they's have to have help getting it on and off at school to go to the toilet so it would be pretty unmanageable.
However Theiss was taping women into dresses all the time on set so just because it was impracticable it wouldn't stop them from doing it in TOS.
Also my daughters skirt is a stretchy material so more easily manoeuvred.
If I were to guess though (without actually seeing an original set worn uniform or testimony from Grace) I'd guess they were separates. Otherwise all the women extras on set would have to have their dresses altered all the time for different body lengths, leg length but maybe they were.
Saying that dies anyone really know. Obviously Grace would know but what did she actually say?
My daughter wears a skort to school. More like Arial Shaw length and the short part has a small length leg to it. So if her skort length was as short as Uhura's dress on Star Trek my daughters shorts part of the short would look like cheer briefs.
As a skort with a separate top it is manageable but if it were built into a dress they's have to have help getting it on and off at school to go to the toilet so it would be pretty unmanageable.
However Theiss was taping women into dresses all the time on set so just because it was impracticable it wouldn't stop them from doing it in TOS.
Also my daughters skirt is a stretchy material so more easily manoeuvred.
If I were to guess though (without actually seeing an original set worn uniform or testimony from Grace) I'd guess they were separates. Otherwise all the women extras on set would have to have their dresses altered all the time for different body lengths, leg length but maybe they were.
I never thought of that! A true one-piece dress-and-trunks design would be problematic for size on guest stars and background women. I'm going back to the drawing board, as far as finding the actual Grace quote, and maybe having to figure out what she meant by it.
Says you and you be wrong, sir.
Briefs are panties - as are thongs, bikinis, hipsters, etc. I've worn them all in my time. Don't make me post pictures (of briefs and no, not of me. Briefs are not my style.)
BTW - to the gent who whined about prudishness; if not having to worry about about my ass hanging out (or my panties) or a boob falling out is prudish, I'm all for it.
Note that I'm all for showing a bit of skin and I did, but things got really, really short and low and it was a pain in the ass for a while there.
At the convention Grace attended in Brisbane in 1982, she talked about how she was made to wear Sally Kellerman's trousers for pre-production publicity stills and immediately went to William Ware Theiss to encourage him to do something for her that was more Mary Quant/Jean Shrimpton. It was the first time I heard the claim that she had contributed to the design.
She told us that "one thigh was wrapped" in fabric to prevent the hem from riding up.
Wow good memory.
Still not sure if it answers the question whether she wore a skort or not. Does it? And anyway was it just her. She was the main female star of TOS at the time.
Can the next person who goes to a convention that has an actress from TOS who wore the actual dress please ask the question. Or even ask Shatner for those lucky people seeing him soon.
I'm wondering if the people who worked on the fan-films know.
PS Sorry about getting your name wrong in the rewatch thread Therin
Some panties are briefs, but that does not mean all briefs are panties. Some kinds of briefs are meant to be worn as an outer layer, like brief-cut swim trunks.
Nomenclatural nitpicking aside, the point is that TOS female uniforms, like tennis dresses, were designed with a briefs- or shorts-like layer under the skirt that would cover the underwear beneath so that modesty was maintained. That is not the same as the actual underwear it concealed.
I agree, I was watching the other night and it looked like something from highschool.
One of the women, in the Trek (TOS) uniforms, looked as though, she was stepping over the camera man's legs.
Mind you, I was watching on a TUBE tv, 13 inches diagonal.
The camera shot was tight up her skirt/skort/ danskin/ gymnast outfit/ tennis outfit or whatever you call it. Surely intentional, very childish and degrading for sure.
Yes, I noticed, and yes, the two episodes I drew the screencaps from are in production order AFAIK. I'm sure that was intentional.
Indeed, just to belabor the point, nowhere in the countless words that have been written about NBC cancelling STAR TREK back in the day have I ever seen it suggested that the risque costumes were to blame. If anything, as Nerys already observed, they probably helped STAR TREK stay on the air for as long as it did.
Much of this isn't true and all of it is arguable.
TOS was freer in showing women's bellybuttons than most other series in 1966 and 1967 but by the time Laugh-In hit NBC in '68 the most risque thing about TOS from a sexual titillation perspective might have been the William Ware Theiss costumes.
"Wink of an Eye" was very risque for the time in showing Kirk putting his boots back on after being alone with Deela for some time. (Well, only a split second objectively, but...) And "The Mark of Gideon" talked openly about contraception, a very daring thing for its day.
Fair points. But TOS by then had very saucy competition.
I don't recall that scene. Can you tell us what episode you're referring to? A plot, a guest star, anything?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
