Is there anyone who doesn't like Seven??
- Thread starter Itachi
- Start date
Yes I do.
Chakotay is number 2 on my favorite list after Kes.
Paris is number 4 after Kes, Chakotay and Janeway.
Harry is OK. weak character but likeable.
Only small breasted unattractive women can wear catsuits without creating the impression that the producers put them in the catsuit because they were attractive. Sad, but true.
If unattractive people appear naked in a movie, people will assume it was done for valid artistic reasons. If attractive people appear naked in a movie, people will assume it was a cheap ploy to lure in viewers. They are often right.
Jeri Ryan is boy-bait in a moo-moo, but every time I see her costume I imagine hearing a producer saying "Is there anyway we could get Seven in a bikini for this episode?"
It's not like trek wasn't always this way: it seems like Kirk's shirts were casualties more often than those redshirted security guys. And every time it happens I think "And, yet another blatant attempt to lure in viewers by providing us with Shirtless Kirk".
lol we have almost complete opposite opinions on the characters.
I like Janeway best then either the doctor or Seven.
My opinions did change throughout the series though. I used to like Chakotay and the doctor annoyed me but now I love the doctor and Chakotay annoys me. Tuvok used to annoy me but now he just makes me laugh. I think Kes was a bit nice for me to really like her, but I never disliked her either.
Rumor has it the producers were ticked when they saw Jeri Ryan in her borg getup. They're reaction was "Get her out of that stuff, asap."
I guess they felt they weren't getting what they paid for even though she was giving a great performance and should have been allowed to remain more borg-like for a more realistic period of time. Idiots.
No, they were smart.
Seven Of Nine was a big media phenomnon out of that Borg suit and in her catsuit. That's what they wanted. They wanted folks to notice the show. Due to it like her or not, Seven of Nine is now a Trek icon because of it. She is now associated with Trek as much as Data is. Voyager got more promoton over DS9 due to her. So yes, she saved the show by making it the 3rd most recognized Trek to the mass public.
Not idiots, just people with different priorities than you or I.
Remember, while the writers, the actors, and various members of the production crew may have believed that they were there to produce good theater, or at least entertainment, the network execs and the producers were aware that the real reason everyone was there was to sell Coca-Cola.
And if it should happen that teenage males form mental associations that will shape their buying habits for decades to come while in a state of arousal, even mild arousal, .... well then it becomes obvious that what the sponsors want is something, anything, in the show that creates that state of arousal.
You and I say "have her change from Borg to human be gradual" because that makes good theater. The execs say "get her out of that suit asap" because that sells more Coke.
While all very true, I just wanna add that a shapely woman appeals to men of all ages.........not just the young ones.
..but Yes, You're dead on. Paramount was taking "RC Cola" and shopping it to the Coke/Pepsi crowd. They wanted what J.J.Abrams did. Too take Star Trek from something that was only talked about on message boards among fans and make it something we all can talk about around the office cooler. It benefits us because now we have more folks that share our interest.
Okay, you seem to have missed my point again. Selling Coke was not a metaphor.
The Powers that be (UPN, Paramount, maybe even Braga and Berman) did not care if they were making Star Trek or Hamlet or Gilligan's Island. Their only concern was Advertising Revenue. Well, that and Return On Investment.
The main thing that mattered to them was how much advertising time during the show could be sold for. Therefore, they were in favor of any changes that they thought would make that ad space sell for more, by bringing in more viewers or by making the show appeal to a more valuable demographic.
Of secondary importance, they are in favor of anything that will make the show cost less, and opposed to anything that will make it cost more, limited by their main concern above. (That is, if making the show cost less would also reduce ad revenue, probably opposed. If making it cost more would also increase ad revenue, probably in favor.)
Absolutely everybody who works in commercial television is actually just providing bait to lure viewers into watching the commercials. Anything else they produce (good theater, amusing stories) is actually a side effect. They are there to lure in viewers who will watch the ads and then buy the products advertised. So really, they're in the business of selling Triscuits.
I'd like to think there once was a "golden age" where TV executives were providing entertainment and used the advertising dollars to defray costs, but I am probably deluding myself in that regard.
The only way we are going to convince the TV networks that they need to make quality programming is if we convince them that we will not watch anything else, or that if we do watch it we will not buy any product advertised during it. And by "we" in this context, I mean the vast majority of consumers, not just you and me or all Trek fans.
Whoops: went all ranty.
Anyway, point is: not a metaphor. Not like "New Coke" trying to appeal to the Pepsi drinker by transforming the product into something new. Simply trying to lure in more viewers and viewers from more valuable demographics, whatever it takes.
The Powers that be (UPN, Paramount, maybe even Braga and Berman) did not care if they were making Star Trek or Hamlet or Gilligan's Island. Their only concern was Advertising Revenue. Well, that and Return On Investment.
The main thing that mattered to them was how much advertising time during the show could be sold for. Therefore, they were in favor of any changes that they thought would make that ad space sell for more, by bringing in more viewers or by making the show appeal to a more valuable demographic.
Of secondary importance, they are in favor of anything that will make the show cost less, and opposed to anything that will make it cost more, limited by their main concern above. (That is, if making the show cost less would also reduce ad revenue, probably opposed. If making it cost more would also increase ad revenue, probably in favor.)
Absolutely everybody who works in commercial television is actually just providing bait to lure viewers into watching the commercials. Anything else they produce (good theater, amusing stories) is actually a side effect. They are there to lure in viewers who will watch the ads and then buy the products advertised. So really, they're in the business of selling Triscuits.
I'd like to think there once was a "golden age" where TV executives were providing entertainment and used the advertising dollars to defray costs, but I am probably deluding myself in that regard.
The only way we are going to convince the TV networks that they need to make quality programming is if we convince them that we will not watch anything else, or that if we do watch it we will not buy any product advertised during it. And by "we" in this context, I mean the vast majority of consumers, not just you and me or all Trek fans.
Whoops: went all ranty.
Anyway, point is: not a metaphor. Not like "New Coke" trying to appeal to the Pepsi drinker by transforming the product into something new. Simply trying to lure in more viewers and viewers from more valuable demographics, whatever it takes.
Exactly. However, by focusing on this one demographic they were ignoring other demographics that could be just as valuable. Other sci-fi shows since Voyager though have realized this which is why we get Sawyer chopping wood on "Lost" and Apollo running around with bare arms on nuBSG and have I mentioned Sawyer chopping wood? Always worth bringing up again...
...um, yeah, so another thing, Seven in her catsuit isn't sex it's titillation because apparently that's all the "favored demographic" can handle - or so they thought at the time. Heck, they considered a bedroom scene for Janeway in "Workforce" but backed off for fear the "favored demographic" wouldn't be able to handle seeing a woman "of a certain age" having a post-coital conversation in bed while covered with a sheet. Oh no, she has to be fully clothed on a couch with a blanket on her for pete's sake.
Since then we've moved on to Starbuck and Sammy in her bunk (no, they weren't making sock puppets) and Kate and Sawyer doing it in a cage. Did I mention Sawyer chops wood? Just thought I'd mention it again.
I'd be interested why Trek's favored demographic is what it is. When I think of the people I knew who watched VOY while it was one the air, only one of them came close to the 18-24 male set. Obviously I was working with a tiny sample, but still. Several of them were actually longtime older Trek fans in the 40-50 range. They watched because they liked Trek and had been watching since at least TNG or TOS. When I was but a tot, I watched TNG all the time, too. I loved it.
While I find ENT bashing somewhat unfair overall, I do remember watching the premiere with my parents and we shared a collective eye-roll during the decontamination scene. It wasn't the reason we stopped watching the show after two eps, but it didn't help the show's case. There's sexy, and then there's lame, and those scenes were lame. I've since come to appreciate ENT, but it did a poor job of pulling me in as a viewer because it tried too hard. VOY tried too hard with Seven, too, but they managed to make her into a Trek icon somehow.
Trek probably avoids bedroom scenes with happy couples because there's like zero tension involved. More interesting (to them, anyway) when it's someone plus alien-o-the-week! :P
I'd like to point out that ST trying to be sexy existed from the first show. Look at the skimpy outfits the costume designer, Bill Theiss, designed (a) for the TOS female officer uniforms, and (b) barely there outfits for many of the female guest stars. So titillation has been present in ST, and plenty of SF, for a long time.
For example, take a look at the book covers for many of the John Carter, Warlord of Mars books, and how Martian Princess Dejah Thoris was drawn.
So Seven is just one of a long line of sexy women in the franchise.
And there have also been male sex symbols in the show. Certainly, William Shatner was cast as a "hunk" -- witness the many times he went shirtless or had his uniform ripped. And eventually, Leonard Nimoy became a sex symbol due to his stoic manner, arched ears and slanted eyebrows, as his "forbidden" satanic image captured the imagination of viewers, men and women alike.
Patrick Stewart as Captain Picard became a supposedly unlikely sex symbol because of his bald head and cool English accent. Let's not forget why Jonathan Frakes was cast as Riker -- he resembled a young Shatner, so there's that sex appeal thing.
It is what it is, folks. And as I indicated earlier, Jeri Ryan is easy on the eyes. She had presence.
For example, take a look at the book covers for many of the John Carter, Warlord of Mars books, and how Martian Princess Dejah Thoris was drawn.
So Seven is just one of a long line of sexy women in the franchise.
And there have also been male sex symbols in the show. Certainly, William Shatner was cast as a "hunk" -- witness the many times he went shirtless or had his uniform ripped. And eventually, Leonard Nimoy became a sex symbol due to his stoic manner, arched ears and slanted eyebrows, as his "forbidden" satanic image captured the imagination of viewers, men and women alike.
Patrick Stewart as Captain Picard became a supposedly unlikely sex symbol because of his bald head and cool English accent. Let's not forget why Jonathan Frakes was cast as Riker -- he resembled a young Shatner, so there's that sex appeal thing.
It is what it is, folks. And as I indicated earlier, Jeri Ryan is easy on the eyes. She had presence.
The show already had hot women in it, Kate Mulgrew, Roxann Dawson and Jennifer Lien.
I never thought Jeri Ryan was all that. She has big boobs and a nice body. They stuck her in a catsuit for ratings. The whole catsuit thing is also annoying in Star Trek. Why didn't they have men wearing tight clothes in any of the series?
I never thought Jeri Ryan was all that. She has big boobs and a nice body. They stuck her in a catsuit for ratings. The whole catsuit thing is also annoying in Star Trek. Why didn't they have men wearing tight clothes in any of the series?
Well, season 1 of TNG... those uniforms were pretty freakin' snug on the men.
Indeed! THANK YOU!!! And Roxann Dawson does look VERY well for being in her 50's
Eh, it's not like 40-something attractive women showing skin on TV is that rare. I'm not sure what "falls into the same demographics" mean, but I don't think it's about the chronological age of the actors as much as the intended image of the character and the kind of 'demographics' that TPTB think they'll appeal, as well as the kind of show it is and the network it is on. By the logic of actor's chronological age, Mary-Louise Parker on Weeds should not be having sex scenes all the time, since she is in her early 40s, similar age as Mulgrew was when she did VOY. As for Trek, Nana Visitor may have been relatively close in age to Kate Mulgrew (not exactly the same, as Visitor was 36 when DS9 premiered), but she played a younger, hotheaded and physical character. (Not to mention what her Mirror Universe character was like.) On the other hand, TPTB seemed to want to project a "maternal" image for Janeway, but that's not reason enough to be afraid of showing her sexuality. Perhaps a better example would be Gates McFadden, who played a mother of an almost-grown son, and was simulating orgasmic experiences on screen in TNG season 7 (when McFadden was 45). Heck, DS9 had 60-something Louise Fletcher in a post-coital scene (though clothed), same thing with 60-something Salome Jens. Rene Auberjonois (57 at the time) had a half-nude post-coital scene in season 5 "A Simple Investigation" (with a 42-year old actress, also half-nude). As for captains, Kirk, Picard and Archer all showed a lot of skin many times. Shatner had as much hinted onscreen sex as it was possible in the 1960s TV. Bakula certainly had plenty of bedroom scenes, though most of them were as Mirror Archer (and perhaps the rules are different for 'evil' people). I think that the reason we didn't see Sisko in a bedroom scene with Kasidy is more likely what froot said, TPTB think that watching people in regular relationships have sex is dull, as there is no tension. It's the same reason why we didn't see sex scenes between Tom and B'Elanna, or why there weren't any sex scenes between Helo and Athena on BSG after they got married, while everyone else was getting their fair share of onscreen action, including Saul Tigh, Ellen Tigh, Adama and Roslin, and even Cavil.
I don't believe that TPTB had an issue with the sexuality of all Trek captains,I think they had an issue with the sexuality of the captain who happened to be a woman. Kate Mulgrew's comments (from the video linked to on this forum a while ago) confirm that, and show that she contributed to this attitude as well, with her belief that Janeway could not be taken seriously as an authority figure if she was having flings or romances the way some of the male captains did, because, according to her, the double standard would kick in (quote: "what's good for the gander and is not good for the geese") and she didn't want her character to be known as, quote, "space whore".
In other words, TPTB had a host of issues with presenting the sexuality a female Starfleet captain lead, since they seem to have been paying too much attention to sexist stereotypes about women. Maybe that's why they kept changing her hairstyles so often - they seem to have been unsure just how sexy they should try to make her. They wanted her to project a 'maternal' image, since that's supposedly the safest way to sell a female authority figure to the masses (especially the alleged 'target demographics' of young males), but they always seemed to be torn whether to make her "MILF" sexy or to give her a "schoolmarm" image. When it comes to her love life, the logic seemed to be that you have to show her interested in men just enough so people would know she is heterosexual, and to prevent her being called something like 'frigid' or 'cold fish', but that you can't sexualize her too much so she wouldn't be called a 'slut' or a 'bimbo'. 
I don't believe that TPTB had an issue with the sexuality of all Trek captains,I think they had an issue with the sexuality of the captain who happened to be a woman. Kate Mulgrew's comments (from the video linked to on this forum a while ago) confirm that, and show that she contributed to this attitude as well, with her belief that Janeway could not be taken seriously as an authority figure if she was having flings or romances the way some of the male captains did, because, according to her, the double standard would kick in (quote: "what's good for the gander and is not good for the geese") and she didn't want her character to be known as, quote, "space whore".
I think you hit the nail on the head.
yes, the general male audience doesn't want to see and older woman being erotic. I don't wanna tune into a Trek that's a Harlequin Romance. Put a phaser in Janeway's hand and shoot something. Trek for all it's preaching of equality is still a boys club as is most sci-fi. Lousie Fletcher sleeping with DuKat was gross and was meant to be. There was nothing sexy about either one of them or that situation. Salome was an alien and isn't seen as a human 60 year old woman.
Eh, it's not like 40-something attractive women showing skin on TV is that rare. I'm not sure what "falls into the same demographics" mean, but I don't think it's about the chronological age of the actors as much as the intended image of the character and the kind of 'demographics' that TPTB think they'll appeal, as well as the kind of show it is and the network it is on. By the logic of actor's chronological age, Mary-Louise Parker on Weeds should not be having sex scenes all the time, since she is in her early 40s, similar age as Mulgrew was when she did VOY. As for Trek, Nana Visitor may have been relatively close in age to Kate Mulgrew (not exactly the same, as Visitor was 36 when DS9 premiered), but she played a younger, hotheaded and physical character. (Not to mention what her Mirror Universe character was like.) On the other hand, TPTB seemed to want to project a "maternal" image for Janeway, but that's not reason enough to be afraid of showing her sexuality. Perhaps a better example would be Gates McFadden, who played a mother of an almost-grown son, and was simulating orgasmic experiences on screen in TNG season 7 (when McFadden was 45). Heck, DS9 had 60-something Louise Fletcher in a post-coital scene (though clothed), same thing with 60-something Salome Jens. Rene Auberjonois (57 at the time) had a half-nude post-coital scene in season 5 "A Simple Investigation" (with a 42-year old actress, also half-nude). As for captains, Kirk, Picard and Archer all showed a lot of skin many times. Shatner had as much hinted onscreen sex as it was possible in the 1960s TV. Bakula certainly had plenty of bedroom scenes, though most of them were as Mirror Archer (and perhaps the rules are different for 'evil' people). I think that the reason we didn't see Sisko in a bedroom scene with Kasidy is more likely what froot said, TPTB think that watching people in regular relationships have sex is dull, as there is no tension. It's the same reason why we didn't see sex scenes between Tom and B'Elanna, or why there weren't any sex scenes between Helo and Athena on BSG after they got married, while everyone else was getting their fair share of onscreen action, including Saul Tigh, Ellen Tigh, Adama and Roslin, and even Cavil.
I don't believe that TPTB had an issue with the sexuality of all Trek captains,I think they had an issue with the sexuality of the captain who happened to be a woman. Kate Mulgrew's comments (from the video linked to on this forum a while ago) confirm that, and show that she contributed to this attitude as well, with her belief that Janeway could not be taken seriously as an authority figure if she was having flings or romances the way some of the male captains did, because, according to her, the double standard would kick in (quote: "what's good for the gander and is not good for the geese") and she didn't want her character to be known as, quote, "space whore".
Yes, when Shatner & Frakes took their shirts off, millions of women world wide got tingly all over just like men do toward Seven of Nine. Are women fans screaming to get Shatner shirtless now? Yet it's supposed to be appealing to the audience to see Mulgrew in a sexual situation?
When Mulgrew has a body like Mary_Louise Parker does then yes, I'll watch her tied to the ceiling fan and getting her ass slapped on every turn. Mulgrew's body isn't anywhere near what Parker has so yeah, keep her covered from head to toe.
So to quote Will Smith in MIB II: "Old and Busted or Brand New Hottness?"
^ 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.
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.
)
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?
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?
Last edited:
