But...... that thing she wore... yeah. That was not only stupid, but also sexist. When you have a Captain who would make the Maquis, a group of terrorists into starfleet officers DAY ONE complete with uniforms and comm badges, you don't give the Borg officer a uniform. ANd it got worse in Enterprise since they decided to do the same thing with T'Pol. An emotionless woman who is drop dead gorgeous wearing a skin tight suit for everyone to look down on.
Good or bad, that is Star Trek from day one. TOS Mini Skirts. Troy in those stupid Cheerleader outfits. It was years before they let her wear the same uniforms as the rest of the cast.
I don't know. I thought the very first Star Trek THING in existence did the female officers justice.
![]()
I find the "sex symbol" argument somewhat puzzling. I won't discount Seven being attractive, but is it really THAT MUCH more of an influence to watch the show because she had that suit on instead of a uniform? I understand the hormone thing, but if that's what you want, even in the 80s/90s, there were plenty of easily accessible places to get that.
I don't know. I just can't see a guy watching Voyager just because of the outfit Seven is in. You can see more for less of an investment in other ways. I suppose, though, this is why I don't work in advertising...
Don't understand it myself. I don't exactly tune in to Star Trek for all the hot women. to be completely honest T'Pol was a detriment to Enterprise the way she was used.
I always fel that Voyager was "Wiedergutmachung" for all the poor Trekkies that were emotionally damaged by Deep Space 9 and demanded a return to a more classic, thoroughly safe and cuddly Star Trek without all the nasty stuff DS9 tried to afflict on the Trek canon.
I disliked most of the characters and in most cases it was just the "Doctor and Seven of Nine show."
Voyager was set up in a similar way to DS9 with lots of conflict between the Maquis and Federation crew as well as having to deal with the dangers of the Delta quadrant. But from the start they made a major turn and headed back for safe waters and into Berman territory ...
It also didn't help that series like B5 and Farscape were doing the exact opposite of Voyager.
I know that the old Trek series are not enough for todays culture additicted to the extreme edge-of-your-seat dramas and action of todays' media. But I still enjoy them, and they are a worthy balance to that constant frenetic pace of current trends.
I agree with the definition of "Safe" being a repeat of what we have seen before. DS9 pushed the franchise in a new direction - for the first time, the future wasn't all "warm and fuzzy where things work out at the end".
But "safe" isn't necessarily a bad thing. TNG was a repeat of TOS, and it was still good. After DS9, I think we needed a series that go back to the basics of Trek and that's what Voyager tried to be - a return to a positive and inspiring vision of the future. I think it partially succeeded, but failed in relation to basic storytelling. They were so focused on the Forrest, they forgot to worry about the trees.
I wouldn't say that DS9 was the first to do the "not a happy ending" thing. Both TOS and TNG had loads of episodes like that, they just didn't push it so far that it dominated everything.
But "safe" isn't necessarily a bad thing. TNG was a repeat of TOS, and it was still good. After DS9, I think we needed a series that go back to the basics of Trek and that's what Voyager tried to be - a return to a positive and inspiring vision of the future.