If NBC had gone with the "Cage" version of Trek...
- Thread starter TigerOfDarkness
- Start date
Yeah, I think the cliches are way overplayed where the wife is always the smarter one and the guy is always lovable but dumb-as-shit and kids are always more savvy and way smarter than their parents. And the final one where most men are varying measures of rutting pigs with no conscience, morals or principles.
Oh, this isn't the "Roddenberry was a dirtbag" thread?
On the topic of woman and Star Trek, I always found it amusing that Roddenberry didn't take the opportunity to put a female second-in-command in TNG (or even go further and put a female captain). Instead, we got Commander Re-Kirk... um, Riker.
Apparently, those who took the reigns after GR agree with you. After TNG came DS9 with Kira as the XO of the station and then came Janeway. TOS was ground-breaking mixing races some of which included enemies of America. But when it came to women, GR kept them a few steps behind men. Did he believe that showing current enemies as friends was more futuristic than showing women as equals to men? It sure seems that way.
Of course, he only created the role of Number One for his girlfriend.
If NBC had gone with the "Cage" version of Trek...my little brother would have been VERY happy. He loves TOS, but he's an avid fan of Pike and Co. - he loathes the NBC people more for not going with Pike than he hates them for cancelling Star Trek as a TV show!
He's nine, btw.
He's nine, btw.
Could I ask where this tidbit came from?
All I've ever heard was that female members of test audiences didn't like Number One being second in command of the ship, taking a "Who does she think SHE is?" stance.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
It's actually both.
There's a poster on here, or used to be on here, who's mother was one of those women who went, "Who does she think she is?"
However, that was not a problem for the studio, on the contrary. The controversy of a female second in command, where an audience one part loves, one part hates her, would have brought in the ratings, so they didn't mind so much.
However, with Number One being Gene's mistress - it went a little too far, and they shut Number One (as played by Majel Barrett) down. Roddenberry simply didn't replace her with another actress to play Number One, which he could have done if he had chosen it.
There's a poster on here, or used to be on here, who's mother was one of those women who went, "Who does she think she is?"
However, that was not a problem for the studio, on the contrary. The controversy of a female second in command, where an audience one part loves, one part hates her, would have brought in the ratings, so they didn't mind so much.
However, with Number One being Gene's mistress - it went a little too far, and they shut Number One (as played by Majel Barrett) down. Roddenberry simply didn't replace her with another actress to play Number One, which he could have done if he had chosen it.
It's from Solow & Justman's Inside Star Trek, p. 60. Solow paraphrases what NBC executives told him in a meeting: "We support the concept of a woman in a strong, leading role, but we have serious doubts as to Majel Barrett's abilities to 'carry' the show as its costar." So maybe my "loved the idea" statement was a little strong, but the idea that they shot Number One down because they didn't want a strong female lead was a myth Roddenberry propagated to cover up the fact that they objected to him casting his mistress.
I don't find anything in Inside ST about those test audiences. While I'm certain that some women in test audiences would've reacted that way, there would probably have been other women (and men) who were fine with it. After all, this was the same era that produced The Avengers, Mission: Impossible, and other shows with strong, capable female leads. So that "test audience" line doesn't wash.
That really makes more sense, to be honest! Christopher made an excellent point when he pointed out other shows contemporary to TOS which had female costars, and nobody really cared that much. I've also always wondered that, if Number One was so "controversial," why would Roddenberry keep the controversial Spock but NOT keep the "controversial" Number One? Never seemed consistant and now I know why.
Exactly. I used both M:I and Big Valley (a strong, capable matriarch who was in effect the series lead) as examples in a paper on the contradiction in how women were portrayed in TOS and TNG in comparison to their contemporary shows. Number One was set up to be the female lead and the possible, along with Colt, romantic interest of Pike; however, Barrett (or M. Leigh Hudac) wasn't as capable an actress against Jeffery Hunter. And the problems with the female lead sleeping with the EP. If things had gone sour, oh boy!
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Well, there is of course a slight difference between a strong female lead in The Avengers and M:I and Number One. Number One was the second in command of a military vessel, and was indeed, IN COMMAND of the Enterprise, a military vessel for half the episode.
See if you can find a woman in command of military vessel TODAY, you won't find them. They're simple presence is rare, TODAY. Back then, in the sixties, I don't think there was even one woman anywhere on a military vessel.
And here came 'The Cage' that had a woman in command of one and giving orders to men for half the episode.
It was a little bigger than simply a strong a woman - Emma Peel, never gave Steed an order. Number One gave men orders.
So I can imagine test audiences, and apparently even female ones, have a bigger reaction to that than to The Avengers. However, as we all now know, that was not sufficient reason for the studio to shut Number One down - there was a whole different reason for that.
See if you can find a woman in command of military vessel TODAY, you won't find them. They're simple presence is rare, TODAY. Back then, in the sixties, I don't think there was even one woman anywhere on a military vessel.
And here came 'The Cage' that had a woman in command of one and giving orders to men for half the episode.
It was a little bigger than simply a strong a woman - Emma Peel, never gave Steed an order. Number One gave men orders.
So I can imagine test audiences, and apparently even female ones, have a bigger reaction to that than to The Avengers. However, as we all now know, that was not sufficient reason for the studio to shut Number One down - there was a whole different reason for that.
Maybe there aren't many high-up female officers in the military, but there are a number of women company executives and world-leaders.
GR thought the "make believe" ( as he says in his introduction to the Cage VHS release ) nature of the show would enable the audience to accept things he couldn't get away with otherwise. Having a woman as second in command could have been one of these.
GR thought the "make believe" ( as he says in his introduction to the Cage VHS release ) nature of the show would enable the audience to accept things he couldn't get away with otherwise. Having a woman as second in command could have been one of these.
Number One may have been cut from the show, but at least Star Trek's portrayal of Starfleet women was consistant. From Areel Shaw to Helen Noel, to even the yeomen Tamura, Mears, Landon and Thompson, they're portrayed as professional, competant, intellegent, and strong women who are able to handle themselves in any situation without screaming like frightened little girls. I'd even go so far as to say they were totally badass!!
Number One may have been cut from the show, but at least Star Trek's portrayal of Starfleet women was consistant. From Areel Shaw to Helen Noel, to even the yeomen Tamura, Mears, Landon and Thompson, they're portrayed as professional, competant, intellegent, and strong women who are able to handle themselves in any situation without screaming like frightened little girls. I'd even go so far as to say they were totally badass!!
But then there's Marla McGivers and Carolyn Palamas, who unprofessionally, incompetently, stupidly, and weakly let themselves be seduced into betraying their crewmates.
Aren't most of them competent?
Number One may have been cut from the show, but at least Star Trek's portrayal of Starfleet women was consistant. From Areel Shaw to Helen Noel, to even the yeomen Tamura, Mears, Landon and Thompson, they're portrayed as professional, competant, intellegent, and strong women who are able to handle themselves in any situation without screaming like frightened little girls. I'd even go so far as to say they were totally badass!!
But then there's Marla McGivers and Carolyn Palamas, who unprofessionally, incompetently, stupidly, and weakly let themselves be seduced into betraying their crewmates.
Also, Uhura's early reaction to danger ("Captain, I'm frightened!") and Rand clinging to Kirk in "Balance of Terror." The main female characters in both TOS and TNG were always relegated to support roles. Uhura and Palmer at communications and Rand as Kirk's Girl Friday. Crusher, Troi and Pulaski all were in the medical section; the only exception was Yar but, of course, the actress left and so did the only female that wasn't in a care giving role.
^^Although I agree there was sexism in TOS, I disagree with the implication that there's anything inferior about a caregiving role. The myth that fighting is somehow nobler or more valuable than nurturing is itself a product of society's traditional sexism.
Sheesh, someone must have pissed in your Cheerios this morning.
All the same, those are just two examples, which don't even come close to matching the positive examples I put forth.
Besides, Palamas turned on Apollo and was instrumental to orchestrating his destruction. Despite the fact that she was deeply attracted to him, she put her professionalism before her own personal feelings, which must have been very hard and emotionally painful to do.
McGivers was just plain manipulated. People like Khan do that sort of thing.
Similar threads
