why did the V'ger probe take Ilia?

[Robert Comsol]

I agree with Synnöve, making Ilia look cute or whatever you might want to call it for an artificial being with a Borg attitude distracted from the threat she actually posed.

If the intention had been to visualize / create allusions to a baby taking its first steps in an alien surrounding Ilia's baldness would have been sufficient, IMHO.

And obviously it was not V'ger intention to dress her like this to provoke an emotional response, because that procedure had to be recommended by Decker to the Ilia probe:

DECKER: Within you, are memory patterns of a certain carbon unit. If I can help you revive those patterns, you could understand our functions better.
ILIA PROBE: That is logical. You may proceed.

Bob

 

[Shat Happens]

VGer, being so much more advanced than humans, choose to send his probe naked instead of in the Starfleet pajama.

Kirk compromised with the robe.

I'm not insulted.

 

[Robert Comsol]

"Kirk compromised with the robe"? Looked to me as if that was V'ger's or the probe's choice, Kirk actually backed away from the shower.

Hmm...or did Kirk press a button? Still, what's the point to get dressed in the shower when you first need to exit it to push a button outside and away from the shower.

That would require telekinetic abilities of a Jedi Knight which Ilia apparently was not.

Bob

 

[Christopher]

It was pretty edgy for a G-rated movie. (Probably part of why the retro rated it to PG for the 2000 DC release...in addition to the mild language.)

The G rating was more broadly defined then than it is today. The introduction of the PG-13 rating kind of shoved the two lower categories further down the maturity scale, so that movies that would've once been PG are now generally PG-13 and movies that would've once been G are now generally PG (in part because the G rating is considered bad for profits). G stands for "General Audiences," and it used to mean that -- suitable for viewers of all ages, not kids only.

Are you saying it's preferable to have female actors in skimpy, impractical/jarring outfits that serve no purpose other than to provide gawking material for the male audience members? Do you not find that to be a hypocrisy or demeaning?

Ilia came from the Deltan culture, which lacks our cultural hangups about our bodies and our sexuality. It's logical, therefore, that her off-duty attire would be less modest than what we're used to. There are cultures in tropical regions on Earth where people go topless or naked much of the time. There are cultures like Japan where families bathe together routinely and there's nothing sexual about it. Not every culture defines nudity the same way. If it had been her duty uniform that had been designed revealingly, like TOS miniskirt uniforms, then you might have grounds for calling it gratuitous. But since it was off-duty attire from a culture defined by its sexual openness, it made perfect sense in context.

Personally I think it's more demeaning to tell people that their bodies are something they should be ashamed of. You're claiming to show disgust at the men who want to objectify women, but frankly it comes off more as slut-shaming directed at the women themselves.

 

[Shat Happens]

"Kirk compromised with the robe"? Looked to me as if that was V'ger's or the probe's choice, Kirk actually backed away from the shower.

Hmm...or did Kirk press a button? Still, what's the point to get dressed in the shower when you first need to exit it to push a button outside and away from the shower.

That would require telekinetic abilities of a Jedi Knight which Ilia apparently was not.

Bob

Yeah, that didnt make sense. But what was the button for?

 

[Christopher]

V'Ger and its probe, again, saw humanoids as parasites that weren't even true life forms. They couldn't have cared less about modesty. V'Ger sent the probe naked because clothes are not an integral part of a humanoid body. As for the design of the robe used, presumably it was whatever was preprogrammed into the sonic shower's clothing replicator under "bathrobe."

Having a button across the room that could control the sonic shower is odd, but lots of dwellings have redundant controls for a single system -- for instance, I can turn my living room's light on or off with either the pull chain on the fixture or the switch by the door. And lots of homes these days have various remote controls built in; when I bought my new smartphone last month, the store clerk tried to sell me a security system which would let me control my home and appliances from my phone. (Which strikes me as a bad idea -- what's to stop someone from hacking your front door code?) Maybe the wall panel Kirk used was a master control/override panel for every system in the quarters, in addition to the individual control panels in the shower, on the desk, and other such things.

 

[Robert Comsol]

V'Ger and its probe, again, saw humanoids as parasites that weren't even true life forms. They couldn't have cared less about modesty. V'Ger sent the probe naked because clothes are not an integral part of a humanoid body.

Certainly. It's just an odd thought that Kirk didn't just save Earth but also and single-handedly the entire film from getting a PG-17 or worse.

Still can't figure out why to have a shower dressing button at the bedside panel in a crew cabin for a single.
Or we have irrefutable proof that officers still have to share the shower with others ("Hey, Ilia dear, can you please replicate me the pale blue jumpsuit?").

Bob

 

[Borjis]

Ilia came from the Deltan culture, which lacks our cultural hangups about our bodies and our sexuality. It's logical, therefore, that her off-duty attire would be less modest than what we're used to. There are cultures in tropical regions on Earth where people go topless or naked much of the time. There are cultures like Japan where families bathe together routinely and there's nothing sexual about it. Not every culture defines nudity the same way. If it had been her duty uniform that had been designed revealingly, like TOS miniskirt uniforms, then you might have grounds for calling it gratuitous. But since it was off-duty attire from a culture defined by its sexual openness, it made perfect sense in context.

Personally I think it's more demeaning to tell people that their bodies are something they should be ashamed of. You're claiming to show disgust at the men who want to objectify women, but frankly it comes off more as slut-shaming directed at the women themselves.

That explains it perfectly.

 

[Robert Comsol]

...from an entirely in-universe rationalization point-of-view or approach that tells us little about the true intentions of Roddenberry and Co.

Bob

P.S. Wait a minute! If V'ger didn't care about clothing, as Christopher suggested, then why is Spock looking at this?!)

 

[urbandefault]

Ilia is completely covered. There is nothing to see below the robe but leg. If you think you see anything else, it's wishful thinking.

Good grief, I see women showing more skin every day out on the street.

 

[Robert Comsol]

^^ The issue isn't nudity, it's about whether the dressing or not dressing of Ilia really makes sense in-universe or not. If it doesn't, then she looks like eye candy deliberately created for the (male) audience.

Bob

 

[Shat Happens]

I see women showing more skin every day out on the street.

Not at the scalp, I am sure.

 

[Synnöve]

V'Ger and its probe, again, saw humanoids as parasites that weren't even true life forms. They couldn't have cared less about modesty. V'Ger sent the probe naked because clothes are not an integral part of a humanoid body.

So you're telling me it sends a probe to observe and record "normal functions" around humanoids, and stores countless numbers of them wearing clothes, yet makes the decision to replicate and send over the Illia copy without her clothing, only to put something on it at the last minute that is impractical and reeks of 60/70s fashion? I don't buy it.

Ilia came from the Deltan culture, which lacks our cultural hangups about our bodies and our sexuality. It's logical, therefore, that her off-duty attire would be less modest than what we're used to.

Not established in the film. The only mention of Illia's sexuality in the theatrical cut is the oath.

There are cultures in tropical regions on Earth where people go topless or naked much of the time. There are cultures like Japan where families bathe together routinely and there's nothing sexual about it. Not every culture defines nudity the same way.

I'm not that naive, and am quite accustom to being nude or close to.

If it had been her duty uniform that had been designed revealingly, like TOS miniskirt uniforms, then you might have grounds for calling it gratuitous. But since it was off-duty attire from a culture defined by its sexual openness, it made perfect sense in context.

As mentioned, all the film tells us is that V'Ger sent over a copy of a crew member without their clothes, to a shower for some reason, and later decided to put impractical clothing on it that just happens to be the sort that titillates a heterosexual male audience.

Are you saying that the film successfully establishes a need and purpose for the probe to beam over without clothes, in to a shower, and then receive clothes that are somewhat less useful in the purpose of being clothing than the crew's are/the clothes Illia was digitzed in? Or is it more likely the producers and Gene felt the movie needed "a hot alien chick" and thus concocted a character whose back-story (not explained in the film) is that of a space fairy nymph and put her in short bathrobe for the latter half of the film? Gene certainly had no shame in putting duty officers in titillating outfits (while on duty) with no unmentioned back-story justifications, as such I find this to be the most likely explanation.

Personally I think it's more demeaning to tell people that their bodies are something they should be ashamed of. You're claiming to show disgust at the men who want to objectify women, but frankly it comes off more as slut-shaming directed at the women themselves.

Having been leered at, gawked at, cat-called, accosted, and slut shamed countless times in my life, rest assured it's not my intention to tell other women what to do with their bodies.

I show disgust for male producers, directors, writers, show-runners, and the like putting women actors and characters in roles that either partially or wholly designed for titillation, not for subversive, emotional, or artful reasons, but rather to try and net more of the male audience by saying "hot amirite?". Star Trek, for all it's positives and the love I have for it, has had this problem since the start in almost every incarnation and this film is no exception.


*Edit*
I forgot to mention those god damn high heels too. You're going to have a hard time coming up with a justification for those as the Deltan back-story wouldn't even support that given how uncomfortable, impractical, and damaging to the feet heals are.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

Beyond what Christopher has said, I think the answer may have to do with the probe's stated function: to observe and record the normal functions of the carbon-based units aboard the USS Enterprise. Although Ilia was a bridge officer, her role aboard the Enterprise was insignificant compared to higher-ranking officers like Kirk, Decker or Spock. The probe may have deduced that observing the remaining crew members from Ilia's POV would provide it with the information it needed. This would also explain why the probe initially asked Kirk to accompany it on a tour of the ship.

Fortunately, Decker was able to use his connection with Ilia to understand what the probe wanted with the Enterprise and her crew, and what V'Ger's ultimate mission was.

--Sran

 

[Christopher]

So you're telling me it sends a probe to observe and record "normal functions" around humanoids, and stores countless numbers of them wearing clothes, yet makes the decision to replicate and send over the Illia copy without her clothing, only to put something on it at the last minute that is impractical and reeks of 60/70s fashion? I don't buy it.

I'm not telling you anything. The movie tells you that V'Ger considers the Enterprise itself to be the only real life form and the "carbon units" aboard it merely an infestation. It wouldn't care whether we wear clothes or not. It merely sent the probe to seek information -- it had no interest in fitting in or respecting anyone's standards of modesty.

And, once more, V'Ger did not choose the appearance of the robe. The robe was created by the sonic shower's clothing replicator, as I already told you. It was Kirk who chose to put the robe on her, and the design was just what happened to be programmed into the replicator, probably by Ilia's own choice.

Not established in the film. The only mention of Illia's sexuality in the theatrical cut is the oath.

Irrelevant. You were casting aspersions about the filmmakers' intent in choosing that wardrobe, so it is perfectly appropriate to provide you with information about their intentions for the character.

Are you saying that the film successfully establishes a need and purpose for the probe to beam over without clothes

The very question is rooted in your own cultural preconceptions -- you consider the wearing of clothing to be the default and thus see the absence of clothing as something that needs to be explained. But an alien entity like V'Ger would not have the same preconceptions. The actual default state for a human being, for any animal, is nudity. If anything, to an objective observer of our species, it would be the wearing of clothes that's the anomaly.

And again, V'Ger considered humanoids to be objects, not people. It didn't understand they were living things. It took a scan of the body of one of them and replicated it for the sake of performing a functional task, observing the carbon-unit infestation. The fabric it scanned on the surface of the Ilia carbon unit's outer integument was not an integral part of that carbon unit and served no function that was necessary to its biological or cognitive processes, and therefore it was irrelevant.

in to a shower

It had to arrive somewhere. Look, I'm not saying the scene wasn't an attempt to put in a bit of sexiness -- we all know Roddenberry's proclivities -- but it's not that difficult to justify in-story, and it's not like there's anything actually wrong with nudity or sex in and of itself. Using sex for exploitation or denigration is bad, but this was a G-rated nude scene that barely came close to being titillating, so it's hardly worth reacting to with outrage. It's just a little harmless skin.

I show disgust for male producers, directors, writers, show-runners, and the like putting women actors and characters in roles that either partially or wholly designed for titillation, not for subversive, emotional, or artful reasons, but rather to try and net more of the male audience by saying "hot amirite?".

I understand that, and I'm sensitive to it, but there is a danger that the criticisms can be cast too widely and come off more as implying that the women involved should be ashamed for having sexuality in the first place. Sex is not automatically bad. Obviously there are a lot of works of fiction that do portray female skin or sexuality in an exploitative way, but it does not follow that every depiction of female skin or sexuality is equally demeaning. If the attitude is that no fictional female character should ever be allowed to be sexual onscreen, that's just as demeaning and restrictive as the attitude that female characters should always be exclusively sexual.

This is a big issue in comics these days, with a lot of legitimate criticism of the way female characters are portrayed in comics, but it can be taken too far, as in David Goyer's recent comments about She-Hulk that greatly misrepresented and demeaned a very strong feminist role model by assuming she was created merely to be a sex object. That was a case of missing the mark and insulting the female character in an attempt to critique her male creators, as expressed nicely here.

I've read a number of columns by feminist comics critics on the issue, such as this one and this one, and the consensus seems to be that it's fine for a female character to be portrayed as sexual or fond of showing skin if that makes sense given her character and given the situation, and so long as all the women aren't portrayed the same way. Showing a non-invulnerable superheroine throwing herself into danger wearing a bikini and strking porn-star poses while writhing in captivity is exploitative, but showing a woman taking her clothes off when alone with a lover of her choice is not.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of depicting an alien culture that's more comfortable and open with its sexuality than 21st-century Americans. A lot of real cultures on Earth are more comfortable and open with their sexuality than 21st-century Americans, so it's a valid choice. And the movie didn't put all the female crew members in such costumes and didn't put Ilia in such a costume while she was on duty. And the camera work and the other actors' performances didn't ogle or objectify the Ilia-probe; her wardrobe was presented matter-of-factly and taken in stride. So yes, it was mildly sexual, but that does not automatically make it degrading.

I forgot to mention those god damn high heels too. You're going to have a hard time coming up with a justification for those as the Deltan back-story wouldn't even support that given how uncomfortable, impractical, and damaging to the feet heals are.

No argument there. I've always thought high heels were silly. But humans wear high heels despite their impracticality, so why shouldn't another culture be impractical too?

 

[Shat Happens]

From a moviemaking point of view, it was important to NOT have the Ilia-probe dressed the same as Ilia so the audience can distinguish easily they are not the same.

As for the reason for the sexy, also from a moviemaking poist of view, absolutely EVERYTHING that is part of a movie has to look its best by definition.

 

[Shat Happens]

From a moviemaking point of view, it was important to NOT have the Ilia-probe dressed the same as Ilia so the audience can distinguish easily they are not the same.

As for the reason for the sexy, also from a moviemaking poist of view, absolutely EVERYTHING that is part of a movie has to look its best by definition.

 

[martok2112]

One person's insult is another's eye-candy.

Are you saying it's preferable to have female actors in skimpy, impractical/jarring outfits that serve no purpose other than to provide gawking material for the male audience members? Do you not find that to be a hypocrisy or demeaning?

I appreciate Benedict Cumberbatch's everything yet I'm not crying for a Carol Marcus-esque undressing scene that only serves to demean the actor, character, and the intelligence/maturity of the audience by throwing titillation where it isn't warranted and ONLY to a certain audience 99% of the time (heterosexual males in most cases).

Judgmental much?
Think whatever you frakkin' want.

I still saw Ilia as a potential threat to the Enterprise, regardless if she was put in a bathrobe, led around nude, or put back in a duty uniform.

As for Marcus' wonderful space undies scene...it's nothing that hasn't been done before in Trek, even as far back as '66....and even then, somehow it worked out in Kirk's favor....so if you wanna get all feminist, you might wanna travel back in time and complain then. In the case for this mpvie, it was a nice, awkward and funny way to introduce Kirk's and Marcus' (hopefully) imevitable attraction to each other.

That they made Ilia look even more sensual and appealing in a bathrobe was simply a bonus. Take that however you will....it is of no moment to me.

@Christopher....i am completely in tune with everything you said.

And yeah...PG today is yesteryear's G...and PG-13 is the new PG....moreso today than in their inception.

 

[Synnöve]

It wouldn't care whether we wear clothes or not. It merely sent the probe to seek information -- it had no interest in fitting in or respecting anyone's standards of modesty.

You're forgetting that every humanoid that was shown digitized was wearing clothes. If it doesn't consider humanoids to be living organisms, then the clothes aught be part of them as well in some way since clothing isn't alive either; if it's going to send back an exact replica and stores the digitized people with their clothes on (as shown in Spock Walk), then it doesn't make sense to send back the probe nude as that's not the form it digitized in the first place! It sure took care to carefully replicate mascara and eyeshadow as those must have been essential to humanoid operation (only on the female models I guess).

It was Kirk who chose to put the robe on her, and the design was just what happened to be programmed into the replicator, probably by Ilia's own choice.

The film doesn't explicitly state this, neither does the script. All these years I've thought that Kirk was hitting the "Off" Button on the shower. Even if this is true, I find it silly they wouldn't change the probe out of the bath robe once it was dry.

Irrelevant. You were casting aspersions about the filmmakers' intent in choosing that wardrobe, so it is perfectly appropriate to provide you with information about their intentions for the character.

It is useless and the final result is what matters most; they decided what the audience needed to know and what they did not need to know in order to accept the events portrayed on screen. There was not sufficient narrative justification for the probe to be sent back nude, there was not narrative justification for the attire it was put in because the film makers gave us none. All of the context you've mentioned was left out as a decision as it must have been deemed unimportant.

Even Seven of Nine's catsuit had more justification for it's existence in the script than TMP has for the probe's attire.

The very question is rooted in your own cultural preconceptions -- you consider the wearing of clothing to be the default and thus see the absence of clothing as something that needs to be explained.

You're quite mistaken.

But an alien entity like V'Ger would not have the same preconceptions. The actual default state for a human being, for any animal, is nudity. If anything, to an objective observer of our species, it would be the wearing of clothes that's the anomaly.

The default state for any carbon unit we see it digitizing was clothed... all sorts of differing humanoid species and they all wear clothes. Obviously they are quite normal from V'Ger's perspective since the exception is to find one that's not clothed.

...but this was a G-rated nude scene that barely came close to being titillating, so it's hardly worth reacting to with outrage. It's just a little harmless skin.

I don't take issue with the skin, I take issue with it's genesis which in this case is clearly "the male gaze". It's a little microcosm of how male film makers have, overwhelmingly, conceptualized the role of women in media: to look good for heterosexual men. I don't get super upset about it except when I'm having to engage in arguments like this.

I understand that, and I'm sensitive to it, but there is a danger that the criticisms can be cast too widely and come off more as implying that the women involved should be ashamed for having sexuality in the first place. Sex is not automatically bad.

I've worn many outfits that would be termed slutty by the casual observer, participated in demonstrations while somewhat nude, attended queer sexually themed social events while wearing my poka-dot heels, mini skirt, and fishnets, and would love to just be nude all the time if people didn't make such a fuss over it (though I do love my power suits too much to forsake them). I'm not anti body and not anti sex, I don't need a feminism 101 instruction as I already had mine years ago.

This is the same situation as the Enterprise crew members wearing super short skirts as duty uniforms in TOS: it makes no sense in the context of the world they live in, dates the work heavily, takes one out of the story as it reminds that there was a creative behind the scenes who thinks of women as window dressing that sells well...

Unless of course you're the sort exemplified by martok2112 who quite enjoys titillation being inserted in to films for its own sake, who do not see that when that's done ALL the time it sets the sociological standard that if women are to exist in media then they must look good for the sake of men and their sexual desires.

In anycase this is the last I'll say on the matter. I appreciate the respectful way you argued your case, Christopher, and am enjoying reading the articles you cited (I'm quite a fan of FCHulk's writing as well).

 

[Christopher]

You're forgetting that every humanoid that was shown digitized was wearing clothes.

But none of the others was recreated as a probe, so that proves nothing. There is no reason to suspect that if V'Ger had successfully digitized Spock and then sent back a replica of him, the replica would not have been equally nude.

If it doesn't consider humanoids to be living organisms, then the clothes aught be part of them as well in some way since clothing isn't alive either

Except that clothing is trivially not part of a humanoid. It is not attached to the body or extruded from the body. It can be easily removed. Its absence does not affect any necessary function of the body, at least in a temperate environment. Indeed, its presence gets in the way of basic bodily functions like sex, elimination, and cleaning of the skin, and thus its periodic removal is downright necessary. It is clearly distinct from something like skin or hair or nails or tears or sweat.

It sure took care to carefully replicate mascara and eyeshadow as those must have been essential to humanoid operation (only on the female models I guess).

I think that's mistaking a filmmaker's conceit for something that was meant to be extant in-universe. In TOS, Leonard Nimoy often had quite visible eye shadow to make his eyes appear hooded and mysterious, but that doesn't mean that Spock was actually supposed to be wearing eye shadow. See also any live-action Batman movie or Arrow episode where the hero clearly has black makeup around the eyes with the mask on, but then the makeup suddenly disappears when he takes the mask off.

It was Kirk who chose to put the robe on her, and the design was just what happened to be programmed into the replicator, probably by Ilia's own choice.

The film doesn't explicitly state this, neither does the script. All these years I've thought that Kirk was hitting the "Off" Button on the shower.

From the July 19 draft of the screenplay:

He punches in a three digit code. Immediately a HUMMING SOUND emanates from the shower stall, Kirk closing the door, but 'Ilia" remaining inside.

The novelization version:

Her cold eyes followed his movements as he punched in a dress code, then slid the transparent door closed long enough for a leisure robe to form over her nakedness.

So yes, the script did make it quite clear that it was Kirk who put the robe on her, as did the book.

Even if this is true, I find it silly they wouldn't change the probe out of the bath robe once it was dry.

Umm... it's a sonic shower. No water.

And both the script and the novel call it a leisure robe, not a bathrobe. It's meant to be casual, off-duty attire. If you look at the Starfleet HQ scenes early in the film, as Kirk disembarks from the air tram and speaks to Commander Sonak, you'll see a number of background extras of both sexes wearing rather scanty civilian attire with a lot of leg on display. (For example.)

There was not sufficient narrative justification for the probe to be sent back nude

There didn't need to be. Nudity is the default state of the body. We're born nude. Heck, that may have been the narrative justification, because the Ilia probe was literally newborn in that scene. Nudity is an effective way to symbolize that.

, there was not narrative justification for the attire it was put in because the film makers gave us none.

Except for the civilian clothing they established on background extras earlier in the film.

Even Seven of Nine's catsuit had more justification for it's existence in the script than TMP has for the probe's attire.

On the contrary -- the justification for Seven's catsuit was never stated onscreen, but only established in behind-the-scenes material. Exactly the same is the case here.

I don't take issue with the skin, I take issue with it's genesis which in this case is clearly "the male gaze". It's a little microcosm of how male film makers have, overwhelmingly, conceptualized the role of women in media: to look good for heterosexual men. I don't get super upset about it except when I'm having to engage in arguments like this.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm fully aware of the male-gaze origins of this. I just don't think it was all that bad compared to a lot of other scenes in other movies, and I think it's suitably justified by what was hinted in the film (the similarly scanty attire of the civilians in San Francisco, the implied sexual openness of Ilia's culture) and what was made more explicit in tie-in materials.

This is the same situation as the Enterprise crew members wearing super short skirts as duty uniforms in TOS: it makes no sense in the context of the world they live in, dates the work heavily, takes one out of the story as it reminds that there was a creative behind the scenes who thinks of women as window dressing that sells well.

It is not even close to the same situation. Ilia wore pants when she was on duty. Only the off-duty civilian attire seen in TMP was scanty and leg-baring, and it was portrayed that way not only for Ilia but for male and female civilians at Starfleet headquarters. (Which I'd forgotten about before, which was why I assumed it was a Deltan fashion. But apparently the intent was that loose, brief clothing was an Earth or Federation fashion at that time.) You have to pay attention, sure, but it does fit quite neatly into the world the film established.


This is also an excellent point:

From a moviemaking point of view, it was important to NOT have the Ilia-probe dressed the same as Ilia so the audience can distinguish easily they are not the same.

Not only this, but the change in costume helps to visually signify the Ilia probe as an outsider, not part of the crew. Thus there had to be a reason to justify that costume change, even if it was somewhat contrived.