Shouldn't T'Pol's ass get more screen time?
Josh
Wayne wrote:
> >
> > I also wouldn't mind seeing the little translator out of uniform, but
> > won't hold my breath.
>
> I'm wondering if we'll ever get to see her stand up or if she's permanently
> glued to her chair. She's become Uhura, unfortunately.
They don't do much with her, that's for sure.
As for Uhura, even sitting down she was a leggy attraction, sitting above and
behind the Captain's chair in a strategic location. By design, of course.
Josh
Lurker@home
"Wayne" <wayneg...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Ps%K7.22$T67....@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
> >
> > I also wouldn't mind seeing the little translator out of uniform, but
> > won't hold my breath.
>
> I'm wondering if we'll ever get to see her stand up or if she's
permanently
> glued to her chair. She's become Uhura, unfortunately.
>
And what a shame -- she's possibly the most intriguing character in the
group, with the possible exception of Porthole........ glad to see that
pooch again, and clearly with some obedience training under the belt.....
Sleater-Kinney
Josh
Sleater-Kinney wrote:
> I think so.
I'm with you. The ogle factor is woefully lacking on this show. Also,
from certain camera angles T'Pol looks a little lumpy. She doesn't have
that almost perfect 7 of 9 figure. Now there's a woman who could fill
out a catsuit. Anyway, I think its a crime to put a character in a cat
suit and then not give us proper camera angles. What's the world coming
to?
Speaking of which, its my opinion that T'pol is not living up to the eye
candy function that's part of her role. I think something going to give
on this issue. Call me a pig, but I need an additional reason to tune in
other than this week's plot. I am quite sure I'm not alone in this
sentiment. Voyager tried to take the high road on this issue and ran
into major ratings issue. "Enterprise" will be no different.
I also wouldn't mind seeing the little translator out of uniform, but
won't hold my breath.
Josh
Wayne
> I also wouldn't mind seeing the little translator out of uniform, but
> won't hold my breath.
I'm wondering if we'll ever get to see her stand up or if she's permanently
Cam Kirmser
And people wonder why we complain about Star Trek. What are you people,
Junior High? Why don't you just get the Playboy channel or go to your local
strip club? You have no interest in a well written, directed or acted story,
something that I think Enterprise is capable of. You just want to see
bouncing flesh with or without plot.
James Ascher
news:kvaL7.121425$WW.77...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
James
Tonka
> bouncing flesh with or without plot.
there ain't a good story in the world that can't be improved with a bit of
bouncing flesh. I might have even enjoyed the Sound of Music if she'd just
taken her top off once or twice.
--
Evil Tonka MCP
Nyrath the nearly wise
> I'm wondering if we'll ever get to see her stand up or if she's permanently
> glued to her chair. She's become Uhura, unfortunately.
But Hoshi looked so yummy dressed in a hooded robe
in "Civilization"
Cam Kirmser
news:25bL7.2667$oF.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
The point is, what kind of quality SciFi can be expected by Enterprise, if
the only satisfaction required is that between the legs. This juvenile
shallowness has given us the current dreck that exists on TV in general, not
just Star Trek.
John Savard
>Voyager tried to take the high road on this issue
With an intro sequence featuring *real astronauts*, Enterprise *has*
to take the high road on pretty much everything.
It's one of the things they should have thought of before getting
started.
John Savard
>I might have even enjoyed the Sound of Music if she'd just
>taken her top off once or twice.
Wrong movie.
I believe the one you're looking for is S.O.B..
Cam Kirmser
news:exbL7.44145$hG6.6...@news.easynews.com...
Having sex as part of the story is fine and, if well done, can enhance its
overall quality. Having a story as part of the sex is banal and ruins the
show. For myself, I did enjoy Sound of Music. It was a good story. I also
enjoyed S.O.B. where Julie did take off her top. It was a funny show and
didn't focus on just sex.
Josh
Cam Kirmser wrote:
>
>
> And people wonder why we complain about Star Trek. What are you people,
> Junior High? Why don't you just get the Playboy channel or go to your local
> strip club? You have no interest in a well written, directed or acted story,
> something that I think Enterprise is capable of. You just want to see
> bouncing flesh with or without plot.
There's always a response like this. The politically correct, fashionably
sensitive male rears his ugly head once again.
Where to start?
I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that "Star Trek--TOS" had
numerous, well written, thought provoking episodes. Yet they also attractive,
leggy young women running around in miniskirts and other revealing costumes-- BY
DESIGN. The creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, assisted by William Ware
Thesis, mandated this.
So good stories, great acting, and a little bit of eye candy are NOT mutually
exclusive of one another. You CAN have one with the other.
Ten years after TOS left the air, we had ST:TMP. It featured a leggy humanoid
probe wearing a very short tunic. Eye candy again.
Nine years after THAT, we had ST:TNG. Short tunics again were featured for the
first season, with one of the principle female leads wearing it during the pilot
episode.
Later, the short tunics were dropped, but one of the lead female characters wore
a very form fitting one piece jumper.
So you've got 20+ years of Star Trek with a history of eye candy. Something that
that the creator of the show felt was very important.
After TNG, There was Deep Space NIne. While it didn't have anyone running around
in a cat suit per se, the Major Kira character outfit was pretty close. Very
tight and form fitting.
Next you have ST:Voyager. The difference here is that Roddenberry is dead, and
Rick Berman is running things. He decides that things are going to change, that
the franchise doesn't need an "ogle" factor to be successful. Well, we all saw
the results of that. "Voyager" ratings started to tank, so they brought in Jeri
Ryan and put her in the famous cat suit. Poof, Voyager's ratings turn around.
I'll give you a hint: it wasn't because the writing suddenly got better.
Finally you have "Enterprise". When asked in interviews, Berman et. all swear up
and down that there will not be a cat suit in the new show. However, we now know
different.
The Star Trek shows have as their target audience 18 to 35 year old males. Sex
sells. Sure they want to see great acting and stories. But they also don't mind
seeing an attractive women in a revealing costume.
It never fails to amaze me when someone comments on the "ogle" factor saying
"but that's just gratuitous!"-- as if that statement in and of itself should
silence all debate. My response is this: what's wrong with gratuitous?
My point in all this is the ST shows have had an ogle factor mandated by its
creator from the very beginning. It has a 30+ year history. We shouldn't pretend
that its not there and not important. Great stories and eye candy don't cancel
each other out. I believe that a number of elements combine to form a great
show. The "ogle" factor is just one of these factors. Take it away, and you have
"Andromeda".
Josh
L. A. McGrath
Bertram are frequently in sexy tight costumes.. and for the ladies, Tyr in
his metal mesh tank top.
Oh, and Andromeda has the other factors, too, it IS a good show.. and Dykan
and Co WOULDA killed the pirates!<G>
Lachlan
--
L. A. McGrath
LAMC...@Prodigy.net
Cam Kirmser
>
>
> Cam Kirmser wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > And people wonder why we complain about Star Trek. What are you people,
> > Junior High? Why don't you just get the Playboy channel or go to your
local
> > strip club? You have no interest in a well written, directed or acted
story,
> > something that I think Enterprise is capable of. You just want to see
> > bouncing flesh with or without plot.
>
> There's always a response like this. The politically correct, fashionably
> sensitive male rears his ugly head once again.
Politically correct?!? Fashionably sensitive?!? HAHAHAHA! Man, have you got
a square peg in a round hole. Take a gander at some of my other posts on
here, WTC or gun groups. I think you'll find a different story. (still
wiping tears from fit of disabling laughter).
>
> Where to start?
>
> I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that "Star Trek--TOS"
had
> numerous, well written, thought provoking episodes. Yet they also
attractive,
> leggy young women running around in miniskirts and other revealing
costumes-- BY
> DESIGN. The creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, assisted by William
Ware
> Thesis, mandated this.
Yeah, they had some cute babes on Star Trek, no complaints there, but, like
I said in my post, the Sex in TOS was part of the Story, not the other way
around. I never watched Trek to see the girls, they were just an added
attraction. The guys I responded to sounded like ninth graders in a school
locker room. I have no problem with well written sex scenes that have
something germane to the story. If the sex is there just for that, the se,
then I see it as wasted. Read an old post of mine in this ng on the decon
scene with T'Pol and Trip. Politically correct - *snort*...
>
> So good stories, great acting, and a little bit of eye candy are NOT
mutually
> exclusive of one another. You CAN have one with the other.
Thing is, Trek, since TNG, is not composed of good stories or great acting.
TOS had its share of not-so-great acting, but the stories were great
(typically). But, the fans seem to not care, as long as the girls wear
skimpy outfits. That's my complaint. The demand is not there for good
stories, just skimpy costumes.
>
> Ten years after TOS left the air, we had ST:TMP. It featured a leggy
humanoid
> probe wearing a very short tunic. Eye candy again.
Please, I try to ignore TMP as much as possible. Further, that girl was far
from what I would call attractive. A cue-ball with legs is not my idea of
beauty.
>
> Nine years after THAT, we had ST:TNG. Short tunics again were featured for
the
> first season, with one of the principle female leads wearing it during the
pilot
> episode.
Yeah, which they dumped. But, like I said, I have no prob with that as long
as the story is good and not there just as a vehicle to carry the sex.
Right, and I agree that, even if just for marketing, the sex is good, but, I
don't like seeing it as a substitute for good writing, acting or direction.
The guys who I responded to sound like they would regale Debbie Does Dallas
as great Trek if the clothes they took off were Star Fleet uniforms. My
complaint is that all they seem to be interested in is the sex. My
suggestion was, if that's the case, why not just rent some porn tapes?
They'll find just the level of writing, direction and acting that they are
looking for. Maybe they could tape a Trek logo to the TV screen while it's
on so that it has the B&B feel...
Bruce Price
attractive. I mean, she is all right and all, but not near the sexual
quality of 7 of 9 or Yeoman Rand.
But I think she has the Vulcan character down just perfect.
"Cam Kirmser" <ckir...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:kvaL7.121425$WW.77...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
William Halvorson
should sacrifice good writing for more skin, or camera angles, they just
want the more skin and camera angles. If the cancel Enterprise, they can
then go to the topless bars, etc..., but until then, as long as we are
watching Enterprise, why not have T'Pol show off? If somebody gets injured
and she has to rip off part of her catsuit to stop the bleeding, or she
catchs part of it on a branch and most of it gets ripped off, still part of
the story and life goes on. No big deal. If you are so concerned about
good writing anyway, maybe you should just read a book, because the lame
writers for Ent. will probably never have a story worthy of the actors on
the show anyway, unless they get some new ones, or light a fire under the
current writers. Maybe put them in a science class or two so they can have
some idea how silly some of their writing is. Or make them watch a few
really well written sci-fi shows.news:x4lL7.125201$WW.77...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Les Bonser
kvaL7.121425$WW.77...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Cam Kirmser"
<ckir...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Agreed.
Besides: If T'Pol was truly in character, she'd probably be wearing a Vulcan
robe, or since she is on detached duty assigned to the Enterprise and Star
Fleet, the same jumpsuit as everyone else.
st...@yahoo.com
that corridor (as the children were running through it)? I think it was the
first shot of her lower backside in motion that I've seen (oh... drool).
Much of it was kinda a silhouette in the shadows, but MAN, that is one
skin-tight suit! Check out that hamstring profile...
On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:06:08 GMT, Sleater-Kinney <tra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I think so.
