Star Trek Voyager
- Thread starter Luke Skyvader
- Start date
Ok, positive time.
When it comes to the inclusion of 7 of 9 (Who I shall refer to as Seven), it was a terrific idea. Seven was a Borg drone who was partially brought back into the world of individuality. When you look at the Borg over all, they represent one of the major changing factors of Star Trek. Wolf 359 was their 9/11. The Federation became more militaristic, we were making deals with our previous enemies like the Romulans in developing the Defiant and have agents in place that would commit genocide against an entire species deemed a threat to Earth. The way the Voyager two-part episode "The Scorpion" handled this was very well done, and the idea that we now have a Borg crew member onboard who is helping us get home while at the same time learning to deal with an entire ship of people whom her species have slaughtered thousands. It was a great idea.
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.
When it comes to the inclusion of 7 of 9 (Who I shall refer to as Seven), it was a terrific idea. Seven was a Borg drone who was partially brought back into the world of individuality. When you look at the Borg over all, they represent one of the major changing factors of Star Trek. Wolf 359 was their 9/11. The Federation became more militaristic, we were making deals with our previous enemies like the Romulans in developing the Defiant and have agents in place that would commit genocide against an entire species deemed a threat to Earth. The way the Voyager two-part episode "The Scorpion" handled this was very well done, and the idea that we now have a Borg crew member onboard who is helping us get home while at the same time learning to deal with an entire ship of people whom her species have slaughtered thousands. It was a great idea.
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 don't know. I thought the very first Star Trek THING in existence did the female officers justice.
I thought about them when I made my post, but as it was not shown until later on in TOS, I didn't count it as from day one. You do have a valid point though, once it a while a female was not a sex object, but NOT too often.
PotionMistress
Sr Member
I think this sexist attitude in Trek had a lot to do with the Studio mind-sent at that time (AND continutes today also), and perhaps their formulaic prerequisites vs Roddenberrys' ideas about the future. There wasn't a show on TV that didn't perpetuate these dual standards. But also, Majel Barrett's influence on Roddenberry may have been somewhat important. But nothing, of course, can override the Studio control, I think; especially back then.
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
Somewhere I read something that gave me the impression it was Gene Roddenberry that put the TOS women in miniskirts, but I can't think of the source for that and may be totally talking out my butt there.
At least the female uniforms in the second through sixth movie weren't sexist. Sure, there was a skirt variant that Uhura wore, but it was a knee-length like today's US military women wear.
Troi looked so much better in uniform than in those stupid jumpsuits. Seven looked great in uniform the one episode she wore one. Seven's bodysuit could have been hand-waved, but there's no logic behind what T'Pol wore (in universe), especially after leaving the Vulcan military. Hell, as time went on they even redesigned Kira's uniforms to be sexier.
At least the female uniforms in the second through sixth movie weren't sexist. Sure, there was a skirt variant that Uhura wore, but it was a knee-length like today's US military women wear.
Troi looked so much better in uniform than in those stupid jumpsuits. Seven looked great in uniform the one episode she wore one. Seven's bodysuit could have been hand-waved, but there's no logic behind what T'Pol wore (in universe), especially after leaving the Vulcan military. Hell, as time went on they even redesigned Kira's uniforms to be sexier.
I recall reading interviews with Berman, et al (including Ryan) that insisted that it was a form of sexism to deny her he beauty. Something along the lines of "she's strong and intelligent, why should that mean she shouldn't be beautiful"? I think they have a point. Seven wasn't just T&A alone.
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
Fair point, but she can be beautiful without a corset and three inch heels.
PotionMistress
Sr Member
I do think, if you have it, flaunt it (when appropriate), but in the military or on a job is not the right time. I liked how they incorporated Seven's more feminine side when she was off duty and exploring her own human sexuality. It wasn't frivolous and it made for a wonderful and logical storyline. There should always be a place for sex, but exploiting it in an obvious and cheap way, like they did in Enterprize and the 'decontamination chamber' scenes was really annoying.
TheDoctor
Sr Member
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...
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.
PotionMistress
Sr Member
I think it is more of a subtle, unconscience thing than overt sexuality; at least for Trek. It attracks a bit of a different breed: more cerebral people really. But, I don't doubt for a minute that the Studio heads promote flagrant sexuality as the mainstay of every production that they make.
I agree that T'Pol didn't do much, IMO, to attract in a sexual way. The problem with a 'sexy' Vulcan is their lack of emotion, and for her to play T'Pol, she had to play her sort of 'flat' and vacant of the things that humans are really attracted to, (other than just a body, if you know what I mean.)
Rotwang
Sr Member
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 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.
PotionMistress
Sr Member
When you use the term, “Doctor and Seven of Nine shows”, it seems a bit ingenuous to me. I mean, you could say that about EVERY show…’The Dexter and Deb Show’, because they focus on Dexter’s character, ‘The Walt & Jesse Show’, because they focus on those characters in Breaking Bad, etc. etc. It’s a misnomer.
And when you say they fell into ‘thoroughly safe and cuddly’ mode ….HUH? What does that mean? Not every good or valid story must stoop to mindless low-brow action shots or boogey-man opponents. Those are meant for people with a 10-second attention span. Grant you, 80% of the populous today may fall into that category, but that doesn’t make good story-telling any less skillful or valid or compelling.
Star Trek is Science Fiction….I THINK, with a focus on the possible Science, not the craziest fiction. At least that was always the appeal for me.
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.
TOS still rocks the house. :thumbsup
Although most of the time you could call it the Kirk, Spock, & McCoy show.
:lol
TheDoctor
Sr Member
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.
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.
I agree. That was the main reason I could never get into DS9, even though I watched it, was that it was just too dark for me. There were some lite shows, but they few and far between. You never had time to get your head out of the dark, at least I didn't. With TOS and TNG, if you had a really dark episode, you knew that in a week or so, you would probably have something to bring you back from the edge, like Shore Leave or Fist Full of Datas.
I agree that it shouldn't be a bad thing. It just shouldn't the the absolute rule that dictates how the story should progress. As I mentioned earlier, you're not going to win any "truly memorable and unique" awards if you come up with lousy reasons why you can run the holodeck no problem while at the same time try to tell a story about how the ship is running dangerously low on energy. I even remember Ron Moore commenting how he felt that Voyager remaining pristine and spotless throughout it's entire seven year run was something he wanted to avoid when he did his take on Battlestar Galactica. The show didn't want to change unless it really had to.
But the worst kind of "playing it safe" will always boil down to the reset switch. Not only is that a cop out to any story you're telling, it also makes any future storyline involving something really important disappointingly predictable. Voyager has a way to get home? Nope. Doesn't work out. Heck, the story to Threshold gives the whole ship a means to get home with the only downside being that the crew evolves into lizards. Of course that sounds bad, but when you consider the fact that the holographic doctor was able to completely reverse the effects off-screen in record time, I think it's worth a minor inconvenience of evolving into a lizard for a short period of time just to be home again.
Also, people can't evolve.
