What is Star Trek and its future?

[Warped9]

As mentioned upthread I think our contemporary understanding of technology could help shape some of the show--at least in some elements.

And I had the subject of this thread in mind while I'm beginning my TOS rewatch (by stardte order). So part of me was idling thinking about, "What could I keep here? What doesn't work anymore? How could this be done today?"

Lets assume we have a ship. Does it have to be cruiser or carrier sized with nearly 500 people aboard? There are social and psychological advantages to having a reasonably large crew, but does it need to be that large? GR initally conceived of a crew of about 200--is that large enough or still too large? Does really advanced technology require quite that many people even if we take potential losses into account?

How fast is our ship? Our we just beginning to poke along at low FTL speeds and thus just reaching the relatively local star systems or can we get to the galactic rim within 3-6 months? Even if we can travel quite fast there are still thousands upon thousands of star systems even within our own region of the galaxy. And even if we have a somewhat modest sized vessel such advanced technology still allows for something quite powerful.

Tied into what I'm musing about here is wondering how far we can push the depiction of advanced technology? There are many things we take for granted today that would look like magic to generations past. If they had been presented with visions of the world as we know it today they could well think much of it impossible fantasy. Mind you we are more accustomed to rapidly changing technology, but is there a limit to what even today's audience will accept before they decry something as unlikely fantasy?

 

[Campe]

I would argue that it can because there has been a history of scantily clad women throughout Star Trek, most glaringly Seven of Nine. At least Uhura and Carol Marcus contributed to the story, at least in some way.

Well I have little time for the 7 of 9 catsuit either.

But that one was a little more complicated.

JJs straight and simple, had to tell a chick we need you to be half naked, for no apparent reason.

It REALLY bugs me when people bring this up.

Have you ever watched The Original Series? Andrea. Carolyn Palamas. Marta. Vina. Zarabeth. Drusilla. Droxine. Mirror Uhura. Not exactly covered from top to bottom. It was done for two reasons: (1) Roddenberry was a horny SOB and wanted to be able to touch all of the actresses and get away with as much as he could on TV and (2) the idea of titillating young minds.

As said before, at least the scenes in the reboots with Uhura, Gaila, the Caitians(?) and Carol were short. Most of these women in TOS had their entire episodes spent in revealing clothing. But again, that was perfectly okay then!

It just amazes me the amount of hypocrisy when it comes to the JJ films. He wasn't the first, guys and gals! It's been happening in Trek for 50 years!

 

[Warped9]

From what I understand it was Grace Lee Whitney who suggested the miniskirt uniforms for the women and, of course, GR went for it.

 

[Campe]

Of course he did! I remember reading a story about GR tucking clothing in and feeling around the female actresses/models during costuming sessions. Roddenberry was a man. I get it. Is it right? Probably not. But it's who he was. Hell, I had a hard time dating two girls not too long ago. I dumped one. I'm almost positive I'll be marrying the other. But I could never be in a situation where I was anything less than monogamous. That's who I am. GR was someone with a different moral center. And if he had willing partners in what he did, that's fine, I guess.

But I think JJ is far less sexist than GR was. JJ created two series with strong women at their center: Felicity and Alias. (Yes, Alias had Jennifer Garner running around in revealing clothes on occasion. But more often than not, it portrayed her as a strong, confident woman torn between two worlds.)

Regardless, I shouldn't be hijacking this thread. We should be talking about what Star Trek is.

 

[wulfio]

From what I understand it was Grace Lee Whitney who suggested the miniskirt uniforms for the women and, of course, GR went for it.

whos idea was the mini skirt for the men!?

 

[Campe]

Leonard Maizlish's.

 

[Warped9]

Of course he did! I remember reading a story about GR tucking and feeling around during costuming sessions. Roddenberry was a man. I get it. I don't blame him for that. Nor do I judge him for that. Hell, I had time dating two girls not too long ago. I dumped one. I'm almost positive I'll be marrying the other. But I could never be in a situation where I was anything less than monogamous. That's who I am. GR was someone with a different moral center. And that's fine.

But I think JJ is far less sexist than GR was. He created two series with strong women at their center: Felicity and Alias. (Yes, Alias had Jennifer Garner running around in revealing clothes on occasion. But more often than not, it portrayed her as a strong, confident woman torn between two worlds.)

Regardless, I shouldn't be highjacking this thread. We should be talking about what Star Trek is.

I think this is one of those issues where indviduals draw the line differently as to what they define as acceptable.

There's no question titilation draws and TOS as well as SF in general has always used that.

I suppose one could use the example of some finding the nudity in Playboy as tasteful while the nudity in Penthouse is gratuitous. It's so much a matter of perception.

But I would say that seeing Andrea in a suggestive outfit does come across differently than seeing Tpol being oiled in ENT. They are both titilation, but for some (me included) the latter crosses a subjective line.

Perception is everything in storytelling. The way women dress today would be considered scandalous by past generations. And even today I personally feel some cross a line, but thats me. Depicting women's attire for a far future setting will allow costume designers to engage in imaginatve ways to titilate viewers so the question will come down to how far can you push it until it becomes generally unacceptable?

There are many instances, in and out of SF, where sex and nudity is used solely for gratuitous titilation. I think there are very few instances of justification for nudity and (somewhat) graphic sex creative arguments notwithstanding.

I'm reminded of seeing a naked Picard in TNG's "Chain Of Command." There was certainly nothing sexual about the context of that. Its sole purpose was to clealry illustrate Picard's situation of helplessness. But showing Picard (or Riker or anyone) coming out of the shower or bathroom naked or having everything-on-the-screen sex serves no dramtic or any storytelling purpose other than blatant titilation.

So much of it is context and perception.


Actually when I think of Andrea in TOS I can put in context of the story. Roger Corby created Andrea and her appearance as well as they way she is dressed is clearly a non-verbal way of telling the audience what Corby was thinking when he created Andrea. The question then becomes (to clarify it further) would any woman in TOS' 23rd century actually dress like Andrea in public? For me Andrea is clearly an expression of Roger Corby's fantasies.

 

[OpenMaw]

Lets assume we have a ship. Does it have to be cruiser or carrier sized with nearly 500 people aboard? There are social and psychological advantages to having a reasonably large crew, but does it need to be that large? GR initally conceived of a crew of about 200--is that large enough or still too large? Does really advanced technology require quite that many people even if we take potential losses into account?

This is totally personal, but I actually prefer a smaller crew. I think it yields more credence to the drama.

How fast is our ship? Our we just beginning to poke along at low FTL speeds and thus just reaching the relatively local star systems or can we get to the galactic rim within 3-6 months? Even if we can travel quite fast there are still thousands upon thousands of star systems even within our own region of the galaxy. And even if we have a somewhat modest sized vessel such advanced technology still allows for something quite powerful.

It's rather amazing we went from The Cage, where pike says "we're from the other end of the galaxy." To Voyager where the ship is slogging across one section of the galaxy for seven years.

Really, this is a question of what kind of stories you want to tell. Do you want that sense of "we're in deep space on the frontier?" You would probably want faster engines there. Or do you want a stronger connection to home to contrast with the alien worlds? Then you probably want slower engines. (Something closer to Enterprise season 4, where Enterprise spends more time closer to home and comes back a couple times.)

Tied into what I'm musing about here is wondering how far we can push the depiction of advanced technology? There are many things we take for granted today that would look like magic to generations past. If they had been presented with visions of the world as we know it today they could well think much of it impossible fantasy. Mind you we are more accustomed to rapidly changing technology, but is there a limit to what even today's audience will accept before they decry something as unlikely fantasy?

I think this all comes down to how the technology is used in the stories, and how it is depicted in general. A few examples. One from TNG is the obvious. The Holodeck. In it's few initial uses, the technology itself is given fairly specific limitations. The fact that it can displace the backdrop and make you feel as though you're moving through the environment is a big deal to the characters, etc... By the end of Trek's run back in the day the holodeck had become some magical, do-whatever you want thing and lost all sense of credibility.


However, right now in the real world? Everyone has a computer, a phone no less, that is handheld with more power in it than top of the line big-box towers from ten years ago.

We have machines, the very primitive first step to "replicators" in the form of 3D printers. This is the ground floor. A machine with raw material and a blue print that can manufacture whatever you tell it to.

There are new materials up and coming, or already in use, that put a lot of the widely used materials of yesteryear to shame. Things like carbon nanotubes. Again, things that are basically built on the atomic level.

When you get to the point that you can fairly easily mess around with atoms and make whatever you want, what are the limits? At that point it's really a question of understanding the atomic make up of things, the raw material (mass), and the power to do the task.

Let's talk about the ship. The Enterprise is a character in her own right, and she would obviously be very heavily influenced by the kinds of technology to exist. She'd be the constant reminder and reflection of the kind of world lived in by our heroes. The cutting edge of technology we can assume.

Let's take the general shape of the ship, since it is so iconic and leave that part alone. The general shape, mind you. Something generally like a saucer, a drive section with arms out to the warp engines.

Now, imagine if it were something like the ship from Flight of the Navigator? A highly reflective hull, no real "working parts" on the outside save for maybe something similar to the bussard collectors, glowing deflector, and a couple of decorative "lights" or back-lit livery. Everything else would be nearly perfectly reflective. Why? Because the ship is comprised of smart materials. It could raise questions like is it partially alive? Maybe in a sense. Parts of the ship can reconfigure themselves based on what's input into the computer. This can range from things things like "hardening" for protection against attacks, to more simple and mundane, like a character walking into their room in a thoughtful state of mind, waving their hand across an apparently blank wall and having the wall go translucent, revealing a beautiful cloud formation/nebula outside the ship that they can look at to relax.

 

[Campe]

But I would say that seeing Andrea in a suggestive outfit does come across differently than seeing Tpol being oiled in ENT. They are both titilation, but for some (me included) the latter crosses a subjective line.

There's no question in my mind that scene from "Broken Bow" was titillating in a different fashion than any costume in TOS or the JJ films for that matter. It was there for one purpose and one purpose only. And I admit I felt really uncomfortable watching it in 2001.

Perception is everything in storytelling. The way women dress today would be considered scandalous by past generations. And even today I personally feel some cross a line, but thats me. Depicting women's attire for a far future setting will allow costume designers to engage in imaginatve ways to titilate viewers so the question will come down to how far can you push it until it becomes generally unacceptable?

Well, I think we're more than straddling that line now. I have no problem with the female form. I appreciate its beauty in all of its forms. But as a culture, I think we are extremely immature when it comes to sex. I respect that there are those out there who feel differently than I do. And I respect that the way something is presented is different.

Regardless, while I will agree that Carol Marcus standing in her underwear on the shuttlecraft or T'Pol and Trip oiling each other up in decon were pointless, titillating attempts, how is Andrea walking around in a revealing jumpsuit for 50 minutes not just as pointless or titillating? Sherry Jackson is a beautiful woman. She didn't need to be wearing the costume she did. Just like the decon scene was pointless. Just like Dr. Marcus in her underwear was pointless. My point is: if you're going to be judgmental, be judgmental all the way. It's hypocritical not to look at one or two examples and not see that it's always been there.

 

[Warped9]

Regardless, while I will agree that Carol Marcus standing in her underwear on the shuttlecraft or T'Pol and Trip oiling each other up in decon were pointless, titillating attempts, how is Andrea walking around in a revealing jumpsuit for 50 minutes not just as pointless or titillating? Sherry Jackson is a beautiful woman. She didn't need to be wearing the costume she did. Just like the decon scene was pointless. Just like Dr. Marcus in her underwear was pointless. My point is: if you're going to be judgmental, be judgmental all the way. It's hypocritical not to look at one or two examples and not see that it's always been there.

Actually when I think of Andrea in TOS I can put in context of the story. Roger Corby created Andrea and her appearance as well as they way she is dressed is clearly a non-verbal way of telling the audience what Corby was thinking when he created her. The question then becomes (to clarify it further) would any woman in TOS' 23rd century actually dress like Andrea in public? For me Andrea is clearly an expression of Roger Corby's fantasies. And Christine Chapel does seem to pick up on it.


On another note I think violence can be viewed similarly. Graphic violence is titilation of another sort. It can have shock value. But a story can be rather dark and edgy without resorting to truly graphic violence to get the point across.

 

[Campe]

Okay. That's a fine in-universe answer for Andrea. And one I suppose I can accept. But I listed a half a dozen more. I mean, does Droxine need to walk around like that? Would a high adviser of an advanced race really walk around with bare midriff and underboob showing? Really?

(And no, we're not going to go through all of these one by one. I'll give up after this one.)

 

[Warped9]

Okay. That's a fine in-universe answer for Andrea. And one I suppose I can accept. But I listed a half a dozen more. I mean, does Droxine need to walk around like that? Would a high adviser of an advanced race really walk around with bare midriff and underboob showing? Really?

(And no, we're not going to go through all of these one by one. I'll give up after this one.)

No need because I can't argue your point. There are indeed examples where there is no clear rationale for the titilation. The rationale for Andrea just occured to me, but I'd be challenged to rationalize every possible example.

In particular I'm thinking of Elaan and Shaana, who both were dressed to simply say, "Here is hot alien space babe."

 

[Campe]

Okay. That's a fine in-universe answer for Andrea. And one I suppose I can accept. But I listed a half a dozen more. I mean, does Droxine need to walk around like that? Would a high adviser of an advanced race really walk around with bare midriff and underboob showing? Really?

(And no, we're not going to go through all of these one by one. I'll give up after this one.)

No need because I can't argue your point. There are indeed examples where there is no clear rationale for the titilation. The rationale for Andrea just occured to me, but I'd be challenged to rationalize every possible example.

In particular I'm thinking of Elaan and Shaana, who both were dressed to simply say, "Here is hot alien space babe."

Fair enough. And like I said, I wouldn't ask you to defend everything. That's ridiculously unfair. Droxine was just the next one I could think of that really stuck out in my mind. And one I certainly couldn't come up with justification for even if I strained my brain to do so.

 

[Warped9]

Okay. That's a fine in-universe answer for Andrea. And one I suppose I can accept. But I listed a half a dozen more. I mean, does Droxine need to walk around like that? Would a high adviser of an advanced race really walk around with bare midriff and underboob showing? Really?

(And no, we're not going to go through all of these one by one. I'll give up after this one.)

No need because I can't argue your point. There are indeed examples where there is no clear rationale for the titilation. The rationale for Andrea just occured to me, but I'd be challenged to rationalize every possible example.

In particular I'm thinking of Elaan and Shaana, who both were dressed to simply say, "Here is hot alien space babe."

Fair enough. And like I said, I wouldn't ask you to defend everything. That's ridiculously unfair. Droxine was just the next one I could think of that really stuck out in my mind. And one I certainly could come up with justification for even if I strained my brain to do so.

Can't be explained. Must be aliens.

 

[Nerys Myk]

JJTrek I think was horrid in that respect, an exceptionally rare offense to be honest.

Randomly showing every female character in bra and panties, while having no relevance to character development.

It doesn't get worst than that actually, and I'm the last person you'd call a feminist.

Uh, what? What was random about it?

Not every scene in a film is about "character development".

There is absolutely no reason they should be half naked.

Its basically the director saying.


your a good actor but lets pull your pants down.

Again I'm hardly feminist, however it's just dumb.

I repeat, Uh what? The scenes involve things like changing clothes and having sex. Underwear exposure, while not essential are a logical part of those scenes.

Men and women in revealing clothing is not foreign to Star Trek or filmmaking in general. Neither is sex or skin. So I'm still not understanding your complaint.

What does feminism have to do with it? Are you under the impression feminists are anti sex, nudity and sensuality? Perhaps the word you want is prude or puritan?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Of course he did! I remember reading a story about GR tucking and feeling around during costuming sessions. Roddenberry was a man. I get it. I don't blame him for that. Nor do I judge him for that. Hell, I had time dating two girls not too long ago. I dumped one. I'm almost positive I'll be marrying the other. But I could never be in a situation where I was anything less than monogamous. That's who I am. GR was someone with a different moral center. And that's fine.

But I think JJ is far less sexist than GR was. He created two series with strong women at their center: Felicity and Alias. (Yes, Alias had Jennifer Garner running around in revealing clothes on occasion. But more often than not, it portrayed her as a strong, confident woman torn between two worlds.)

Regardless, I shouldn't be highjacking this thread. We should be talking about what Star Trek is.

I think this is one of those issues where indviduals draw the line differently as to what they define as acceptable.

There's no question titilation draws and TOS as well as SF in general has always used that.

I suppose one could use the example of some finding the nudity in Playboy as tasteful while the nudity in Penthouse is gratuitous. It's so much a matter of perception.

But I would say that seeing Andrea in a suggestive outfit does come across differently than seeing Tpol being oiled in ENT. They are both titilation, but for some (me included) the latter crosses a subjective line.

Perception is everything in storytelling. The way women dress today would be considered scandalous by past generations. And even today I personally feel some cross a line, but thats me. Depicting women's attire for a far future setting will allow costume designers to engage in imaginatve ways to titilate viewers so the question will come down to how far can you push it until it becomes generally unacceptable?

There are many instances, in and out of SF, where sex and nudity is used solely for gratuitous titilation. I think there are very few instances of justification for nudity and (somewhat) graphic sex creative arguments notwithstanding.

I'm reminded of seeing a naked Picard in TNG's "Chain Of Command." There was certainly nothing sexual about the context of that. Its sole purpose was to clealry illustrate Picard's situation of helplessness. But showing Picard (or Riker or anyone) coming out of the shower or bathroom naked or having everything-on-the-screen sex serves no dramtic or any storytelling purpose other than blatant titilation.

So much of it is context and perception.


Actually when I think of Andrea in TOS I can put in context of the story. Roger Corby created Andrea and her appearance as well as they way she is dressed is clearly a non-verbal way of telling the audience what Corby was thinking when he created Andrea. The question then becomes (to clarify it further) would any woman in TOS' 23rd century actually dress like Andrea in public? For me Andrea is clearly an expression of Roger Corby's fantasies.

You've seen "The Cloud Minders", right?

ETA Should have finished reading the thread.

 

[BillJ]

Have you ever watched The Original Series? Andrea.

You know damned well that Andrea's camel toe was relevant to the plot!

 

[Autistoid]

Uh, what? What was random about it?

Not every scene in a film is about "character development".

There is absolutely no reason they should be half naked.

Its basically the director saying.


your a good actor but lets pull your pants down.

Again I'm hardly feminist, however it's just dumb.

I repeat, Uh what? The scenes involve things like changing clothes and having sex. Underwear exposure, while not essential are a logical part of those scenes.

Men and women in revealing clothing is not foreign to Star Trek or filmmaking in general. Neither is sex or skin. So I'm still not understanding your complaint.

What does feminism have to do with it? Are you under the impression feminists are anti sex, nudity and sensuality? Perhaps the word you want is prude or puritan?

I really don't think you get it.


At some point they were like yeah, we need you to take all your clothes off.

Actress: Why?

Director: Ummm your getting changed?

Actress: So why isn't anyone else getting changed.

Director: Um, because we only created this sceen to please 15 year olds.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There is absolutely no reason they should be half naked.

Its basically the director saying.


your a good actor but lets pull your pants down.

Again I'm hardly feminist, however it's just dumb.

I repeat, Uh what? The scenes involve things like changing clothes and having sex. Underwear exposure, while not essential are a logical part of those scenes.

Men and women in revealing clothing is not foreign to Star Trek or filmmaking in general. Neither is sex or skin. So I'm still not understanding your complaint.

What does feminism have to do with it? Are you under the impression feminists are anti sex, nudity and sensuality? Perhaps the word you want is prude or puritan?

I really don't think you get it.


At some point they were like yeah, we need you to take all your clothes off.

Actress: Why?

Director: Ummm your getting changed?

Actress: So why isn't anyone else getting changed.

Director: Um, because we only created this sceen to please 15 year olds.

OH, I get what you're trying to say, I just don't buy it. In fact it sounds like something a 15 year old would come up with. Probably at night in his bed.

I've a feeling that scene was in the script long before it was filmed. and the actress in question has been nuder. So we're not talking about something sprung at the last minute on some innocent jut off the bus. And I've no illusions as to why it's in the film. It's a fun little scene. But its not the big deal you seem to think it is. Especially given Star Trek's history with the female form. It's history of skin, sex and sensuality is well documented. By comparison the scenes in ST09 and STID are pretty tame.

 

[OpenMaw]

Except we were actually told this by the writers themselves. They put Carol stripping down just to see Carol stripping down. There wasn't even the illusion of an alternative reason to have her do that, and the only explanation anyone has ever mustered is actually contradicted by the wardrobe in the movie itself.