Nightmare Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 It happened like every few episodes and T'Pol strangely always had a virus. Phlox is a dirty bastard me thinks. Then there were random T'Pol back massages showing off ample semi-nudity. Although it was slightly hawt it was so un-star trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarneyCletus Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Desperation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 It was a ratings ploy. Large breasted vulcan, who's already wearing a tank top and daisy duke style shorts, rubbing baby oil style lotion/gel on herself...Yea you didnt need to be a genius to see how that would get the lonely trekkies tuned into the show even if it sucked ;o Personally while I think the actress that played T'Pal is quite attractive, I don't subscribe to the 7 of 9/T'Pal need for large breasted attractive females as regular cast members (whom always seem to wear skin tight outfits for no apparent reason..). Look at Uhura, or even Troi. Both were done tastefully, even Jadzia. It doesn't have to be over the top to get the point across Now, if only HBO would give us an uncensored version of that episode... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Enigma Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 "It Rubs the Lotion on It's Skin" "Buffalo Bill" ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 haha, i only watched ENT b/c To' pol was rubbing herself with gell in her underwear :) lmao, j/k i have only seen season 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yup, check the labels on the bottle "Fanboy service lotion - apply during desperate rating slump." If you look on the inside of 7 of 9's catsuit, you'll find it's made by the same company as that lotion. Crazy, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yup, check the labels on the bottle "Fanboy service lotion - apply during desperate rating slump." If you look on the inside of 7 of 9's catsuit, you'll find it's made by the same company as that lotion. Crazy, huh? Can you imagine those writers meetings? "Ok guys, last weeks episode was seen by all three of our fans, we need something new, something fresh. Something the audience has never seen in their lives. I've got it, we can show them, wait for it........hot semi naked women." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 you didnt need to be a genius to see how that would get the lonely trekkies tuned into the show even if it sucked ;o You mean they THOUGHT that would attract trekkies. Truth is, most trekkies have very high IQs and want a good story that challenges their intellect, so the oil-rubbing & shower-scenes actually had the *opposite* effect and drove Trekkies away in droves. They felt insulted. troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 You mean they THOUGHT that would attract trekkies. Truth is, most trekkies have very high IQs and want a good story that challenges their intellect, so the oil-rubbing & shower-scenes actually had the *opposite* effect and drove Trekkies away in droves. They felt insulted. troy It also drove in some new fans :) the whole point was to make Star Trek look cooler i think. The preview for Enterprise say the pull out all the stops - they did somthing similar here... I don't see why it should be expected that Trekkies would have high IQ's - I mean i can't see what's so intellectually (see - i can't even spell intelecually :) ) challenging about DS9 or Voyager. And to be honest - i don't see why it should be. BSG and SG-1 are both very popular series's and they don't attract the same kind of fan as Star Trek....Star Trek could learn a thing or 2 from other series's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterwheeler Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Well they had to something to avert attention away from a sub standard story-line. I tend to f/f those scenes to get back to the story even it's poor. If I wanted titilation I would not be watching Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 the oil-rubbing & shower-scenes actually had the *opposite* effect and drove Trekkies away in droves. They felt insulted. It also drove in some new fans :) I don't see why it should be expected that Trekkies would have high IQ's - The ratings of Enterprise plummeted from ~6% of the U.S. to 3% of the U.S. They *lost* fans. Also, studies of the Trekkie audience shows that most of them are scientists & engineers. Not exactly the low-end of the IQ scale. I can well imagine some NASA scientist or Microsoft engineer watching the near-nudity & thinking "What's this crap? I want intelligent stories, not soap opera. Where are the intelligent stories?" As for Galactica, I don't see the revelance to Star Trek? As you pointed out, different goals/different audiences. How can you draw any kind of conclusion? troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 the oil-rubbing & shower-scenes actually had the *opposite* effect and drove Trekkies away in droves. They felt insulted. It also drove in some new fans :) I don't see why it should be expected that Trekkies would have high IQ's - The ratings of Enterprise plummeted from ~6% of the U.S. to 3% of the U.S. They *lost* fans. Yes - those maybe the raiting when it was FIRST aired - but many new fans will watch ENT as it is repeated and will see some of the things they like and will watch some of the other ST series's as well. It's all about generating new fans - Star Trek is evolving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 The ratings of Enterprise plummeted from ~6% of the U.S. to 3% of the U.S. They *lost* fans.Yes - those maybe the raiting when it was FIRST aired - but many new fans will watch ENT as it is repeated and will see some of the things they like and will watch some of the other ST series's as well. It's all about generating new fans - Star Trek is evolving. Oh I see what you're saying. You're talking about Reruns attracting new people. I was specifically addressed the Trekkies who were *already fans* and felt insulted. I suppose exposed breasts & butts would attract a new type of audience. But is soft porn really what you want to produce???? IMHO, Star Trek evolved into toddler-school crap. Voyager & Enterprise were so dumbed-down I could feel brain cells dying off: "Ahhhh! -300 degree celsius does not exist! It's below absolute zero! Impossible!" And another brain cells explodes in disbelief. Similarly, I don't like the New Galactica. It's a good story, but that's all it is. Just a story. The science is soooo completely wrong, they should rename the show "Future Fantasy", because that's what it actually is. There's no science whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Also, studies of the Trekkie audience shows that most of them are scientists & engineers. Not exactly the low-end of the IQ scale. I can well imagine some NASA scientist or Microsoft engineer watching the near-nudity & thinking "What's this crap? I want intelligent stories, not soap opera. Where are the intelligent stories?" Those studies, eh? Care to cite? And really - name the last intelligent story in Trek? Most of them are just straight out of the star trek episode generator. If you want intelligent stories - you wouldn't waste your time with Trek. You'd go to shows like Lost, BSG, House etc. While I can accept that Star Trek is watched by some smart people - I refuse to accept the notion that it's significantly higher than the shows I mentioned before without something more concrete than "some survey". I've also noticed that more hardcore sci-fi fans tend to dismiss any kind of detailed character development or interaction as too soap opera - no, that makes for a good show. As to Trek evolving... more like devolving. We've gone from Picard's moral wrestling with the Prime Directive to the far more tangible dilemmas of Sisko, to the consistently inconsistent Janeway and her spandex clad Borg, to the ever dull Archer and the entirely shameless fanservice. For me, that's a very tangible downward spiral - and given that the ratings have been similarly downward I'm not the only person that feels that way. So I don't think we can say that Trek has been changing for the better, I think it's been desperately clawing at ratings like a cornered animal. Thank goodness they put it down before it hurt someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Also' date=' studies of the Trekkie audience shows that most of them are scientists & engineers. Not exactly the low-end of the IQ scale. I can well imagine some NASA scientist or Microsoft engineer watching the near-nudity & thinking "What's this crap? I want intelligent stories, not soap opera. Where are the intelligent stories?" [/quote'] Those studies, eh? Care to cite? Nielsen Ratings Demographics. They come out every quarter & analyze the type of audience watching. If you want intelligent stories - you wouldn't waste your time with Trek. You'd go to shows like Lost, BSG, House etc. BSG? Is that a joke? BS Galactica violates science all over the place. I agree it's entertaining, but "intelligent" it is not. It's like Hercules (or Xena) in space. Pure fantasy/made-up nonsense. As to Trek evolving... more like devolving. We've gone from Picard's moral wrestling with the Prime Directive.... to the ever dull Archer and the entirely shameless fanservice. ----- For me, that's a very tangible downward spiral - and given that the ratings have been similarly downward I'm not the only person that feels that way. At least we agree on something! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exterus Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 They should have eliminated the males in this ploy altogether. I would gladly buy every buyable trinket in the enterprise franchise if I could watch 40 minutes of T'Pol and Hoshi rubbing each other with gel in minimal underwear. Me and every other straight male trekkie (and a number of females too, no doubt). Oh come on, there's no point in denying it. We're on the internet now, there's no need to try to act like the metrosexual modern feminist man here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Enigma Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 They should have eliminated the males in this ploy altogether. I would gladly buy every buyable trinket in the enterprise franchise if I could watch 40 minutes of T'Pol and Hoshi rubbing each other with gel in minimal underwear. Best idea for a show ever. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbosdell Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 The ratings of Enterprise plummeted from ~6% of the U.S. to 3% of the U.S. They *lost* fans.Yes - those maybe the raiting when it was FIRST aired - but many new fans will watch ENT as it is repeated and will see some of the things they like and will watch some of the other ST series's as well. It's all about generating new fans - Star Trek is evolving. Oh I see what you're saying. You're talking about Reruns attracting new people. I was specifically addressed the Trekkies who were *already fans* and felt insulted. I suppose exposed breasts & butts would attract a new type of audience. But is soft porn really what you want to produce???? IMHO, Star Trek evolved into toddler-school crap. Voyager & Enterprise were so dumbed-down I could feel brain cells dying off: "Ahhhh! -300 degree celsius does not exist! It's below absolute zero! Impossible!" And another brain cells explodes in disbelief. Similarly, I don't like the New Galactica. It's a good story, but that's all it is. Just a story. The science is soooo completely wrong, they should rename the show "Future Fantasy", because that's what it actually is. There's no science whatsoever. um yeah and TOS/TNG wasnt full of scientific nonsense either. and anyways I grew up with VOY/ENT so I may not be objective when I say it but at least Enterprise and Most Voyager is watchable compared to TNG which I can't force myself through some days. also the reason Enterprise didn't do as good in the ratings especially in the later seasons is the facts that: 1. UPN isn't even shown in a lot of the US so those people were forced to download or miss out 2. UPN allowed major cities to preempt at will for sports and anything so whenever they did if they did air the episodes they werent counted into ratings so sometimes millions of fans might not be able to watch or be counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Nielsen Ratings Demographics. They come out every quarter & analyze the type of audience watching. Show me some of the appropriate charts then. BSG? Is that a joke? BS Galactica violates science all over the place. I agree it's entertaining, but "intelligent" it is not. It's like Hercules (or Xena) in space. Pure fantasy/made-up nonsense. Quite frankly I fail to see why so many people here seem to think it's clever to shoot down BSG which has frankly been one of the best new sci-fi shows of the decade. It slams every single Star Trek series in terms of characters, plot, science... I struggle to think of any field it loses to ST. If you can sit and watch the new BSG start to finish and say it's not intelligent... well, then we can have you inside an MRI scanner within an hour to find out what's going wrong. ;) CBOS brings up a good point - ENT was (as seems common with ailing shows) jerked around the schedules and that is always damaging to ratings. That and ratings aren't infallible, especially in these days when downloading etc begins to make a real difference to tv habits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I completly agree - I havn't even seen BSG and yet i know that Star Trek could be so much better if it took some of the elements and used them in there series - i mean i brought this up before - but shows like SG-1 use humour and dramma and that can really improve raitings and make for a better story - and it wouldn't change what star trek was and we would still be able to recognise Star Trek as it is. And yeah - Enterprise wasn't so bad over here (UK) when it came to schedualling - but it does sound quite bad over in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts