Support NeoGAF

[Pluto]

Star Trek has always been pretty progressive ...

That's a myth, Star Trek was never particularly progressive.
They only had minorities on the bridge because NBC demanded it but Roddenberry had only white men as part of the main cast (he could have had a female first officer, NBC liked the idea the just didn't like Majel Barrett and Roddenberry refused to recast and lied instead than NBC nixed the character).
While Star Trek was on the air other shows had female and minority leads, I Spy (Bill Cosby), The Avengers (Diana Rigg) and Mission Impossible (Barbara Bain and Greg Morris) for example.

I really like Star Trek but it was never progressive, it's 2016 and in 50 years they haven't even managed to include LGBT characters, something Cheers did in 1983! It was only one episode but a sitcom in the early 80s did it and the oh so "progressive" Star Trek didn't although the bulk of its episodes aired in the 90s and early 2000s.

 

[curls]

Progressive in some aspects

Men wore dresses and people didn't need money. ha

 

[Fuchsdh]

Trek has always been a mix of very conservative and liberal attitudes. It's a world without money where you don't have to work and people embrace diversity, but we don't practically ever see people sponging off the system, and Starfleet is still a rigid meritocracy which values individualism and talent.

 

[BrokenFiction]

I've always wanted to see less focus on a bridge crew and more on the below decks kids. We've done the Captain/First Officer/Doctor/Chief Engineer/Etc thing TO DEATH on these shows. Show me the grunts, the workers...hell, even the sanitation crew (Finn represent!).

 

[Octavianus]

After Enterprise and Voyager, I just want a well written Captain. Not complete idiots who would never really be put in command.

Guess for diversity, I'd lean towards a Female Captain, we need a good one. We've had a great Black Captain. Give me someone like Colonel Kira, but in full command.




Rather they stick with the late DS9/First Contact Uniforms. Those looked good!

I always thought the grey suits were a little boring.
I think they fit the time period because the federation was under a lot of strain at that point, but I think it's a good time to let out that inner brightness again!

I've been rewatching Daredevil today and I feel like Rosario Dawson could be a good captain too:

I've always wanted to see less focus on a bridge crew and more on the below decks kids. We've done the Captain/First Officer/Doctor/Chief Engineer/Etc thing TO DEATH on these shows. Show me the grunts, the workers...hell, even the sanitation crew (Finn represent!).

Something like that could work. The Next Generation actually had an episode like that and it's one of my favourites.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

The ideals of the 24th century Federation were progressive and wonderful. The execution by the 20th century writing staff, not so much.

 

[hobblygobbly]

That's a myth, Star Trek was never particularly progressive.
They only had minorities on the bridge because NBC demanded it but Roddenberry had only white men as part of the main cast (he could have had a female first officer, NBC liked the idea the just didn't like Majel Barrett and Roddenberry refused to recast and lied instead than NBC nixed the character).
While Star Trek was on the air other shows had female and minority leads, I Spy (Bill Cosby), The Avengers (Diana Rigg) and Mission Impossible (Barbara Bain and Greg Morris) for example.

I really like Star Trek but it was never progressive, it's 2016 and in 50 years they haven't even managed to include LGBT characters, something Cheers did in 1983! It was only one episode but a sitcom in the early 80s did it and the oh so "progressive" Star Trek didn't although the bulk of its episodes aired in the 90s and early 2000s.

What I feel Trek is known for regarding being progressive is for is its episodes of particular topics, it's done multiple LGBTQ topics as well as feminist topics, there are episodes (and characters) that are considered metaphors for gender related topics such as Trills/symbiotes, as well as androgynous characters in certain episodes such as "The Outcast" in TNG and (IIRC) the first introduction of Trills exploring relationship situations exhibiting similarities of transgenderism in the TNG episode of "The Host", where Beverly Crusher faces a change of her lover from a man to a woman.

Trills/symbiotes particularly in DS9 is about presenting thinking of gender itself, identity as well as sexuality and the relationships that exist, such as Sisko struggling to come to terms with where his friend (Curzon Dax) who was a man is now a woman (Jadzia Dax, got the symbiote in first ep of first season from Curzon), particularly a bit of that discussion takes place in the episode "A Man Alone" early in the first season. It's not specifically a direct discussion of transgender itself, but it does explore its similarities. Even though Trek didn't have LGBTQ characters per-se (then again, many argue that Jadzia Dax was in essence), it did explore topics in many episodes of multiple shows that I don't think any other franchise had done during its time.

 

[Fuchsdh]

What I feel Trek is known for regarding being progressive is for is its episodes of particular topics, it's done multiple LGBTQ topics as well as feminist topics, there are episodes (and characters) that are considered metaphors for gender related topics such as Trills/symbiotes, as well as androgynous characters in certain episodes such as "The Outcast" in TNG and (IIRC) the first introduction of Trills exploring relationship situations exhibiting similarities of transgenderism in the TNG episode of "The Host", where Beverly Crusher faces a change of her lover from a man to a woman.

Trills/symbiotes particularly in DS9 is about presenting thinking of gender itself, identity as well as sexuality and the relationships that exist, such as Sisko struggling to come to terms with where his friend (Curzon Dax) who was a man is now a woman (Jadzia Dax, got the symbiote in first ep of first season from Curzon), particularly a bit of that discussion takes place in the episode "A Man Alone" early in the first season. It's not specifically a direct discussion of transgender itself, but it does explore its similarities. Even though Trek didn't have LGBTQ characters per-se (then again, many argue that Jadzia Dax was in essence), it did explore topics in many episodes of multiple shows that I don't think any other franchise had done during its time.

I think part of the reason Trek has been so successful in that way versus the more obvious facets people are talking about is because the level of abstraction makes it much easier for people to understand. In the real world it still seems weird for a lot of people that someone thinks they're born the wrong gender, but if you talk about the Trill as this weird alien race it's far more understandable from a fictional conceit. Trek has characters dismissing polygamy as no big deal and a lot of its characters could probably be considered agnostic at the very least, and yet the show has been broadly palatable to a lot of people.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

One thing that is striking, in my opinion, is that the federation has been in an almost constant state of war since its foundation. One could argue that the federation is merely playing a defensive role against its enemies by securing various neutral zones, but as far as we're aware the federation has been at war -or close to it- with every major power they've encountered. Not only that, but the only time we have seen a war from start to finish has involved the federation marching to war as animatedly as the dominion (with cause, I suppose)...

So, really, for everything we are told about the federation's ideals, we are shown something completely different.

 

[Matt]

What I feel Trek is known for regarding being progressive is for is its episodes of particular topics, it's done multiple LGBTQ topics as well as feminist topics, there are episodes (and characters) that are considered metaphors for gender related topics such as Trills/symbiotes, as well as androgynous characters in certain episodes such as "The Outcast" in TNG and (IIRC) the first introduction of Trills exploring relationship situations exhibiting similarities of transgenderism in the TNG episode of "The Host", where Beverly Crusher faces a change of her lover from a man to a woman.

That's being VERY generous to "The Outcast." What you describe is what the episode should have been about, but instead it was about someone who has characteristics of and identifies as a female being with a male. The episode was about how the right man can fix a confused woman more than anything else.

 

[Escape Goat]

Something like that could work. The Next Generation actually had an episode like that and it's one of my favourites.

That episode was so sad.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

One thing that is striking, in my opinion, is that the federation has been in an almost constant state of war since its foundation. One could argue that the federation is merely playing a defensive role against its enemies by securing various neutral zones, but as far as we're aware the federation has been at war -or close to it- with every major power they've encountered. Not only that, but the only time we have seen a war from start to finish has involved the federation marching to war as animatedly as the dominion (with cause, I suppose)...

So, really, for everything we are told about the federation's ideals, we are shown something completely different.

Just like the United States then. Foreign policy and domestic policy typically don't go hand in hand.

 

[aceface]

That's being VERY generous to "The Outcast." What you describe is what the episode should have been about, but instead it was about someone who has characteristics of and identifies as a female being with a male. The episode was more about how the right man can fix a confused woman more than anything else.

No? I haven't seen that episode in years but as I remember it as a classic trek "take a social issue and flip it" episode. So, instead of non-gendered/attracted to the same sex people being outcasts it's gendered/ attracted to the opposite sex people who are for that alien species. I wouldn't really say that the character who's Riker's love interest has the characteristics of a female even though she identifies as a female. In the episode they mention how that species procreates by inseminating a husk, so I assume she has an inseminator of some type (goddamnit I'm going full comic book guy on this...anyways..). Also, he doesn't really fix her, she becomes an outcast in her society and goes through conversion therapy to go back to being non-gendered and is pretty clearly psychologically broken by the end of the episode.

 

[HUELEN10]

That episode was so sad.

What is the name of that episode? dammit...

 

[aceface]

What is the name of that episode? dammit...

Lower Decks.

 

[Timbuktu]

I've always wanted to see less focus on a bridge crew and more on the below decks kids. We've done the Captain/First Officer/Doctor/Chief Engineer/Etc thing TO DEATH on these shows. Show me the grunts, the workers...hell, even the sanitation crew (Finn represent!).

Something like that would be a bit like Master and Commander, which i thought was the best Star Trek movie not in space. I thought that oulled together the different part of the crew to show how the ship works pretty well.

 

[Matt]

No? I haven't seen that episode in years but as I remember it as a classic trek "take a social issue and flip it" episode. So, instead of non-gendered/attracted to the same sex people being outcasts it's gendered/ attracted to the opposite sex people who are for that alien species. I wouldn't really say that the character who's Riker's love interest has the characteristics of a female even though she identifies as a female. In the episode they mention how that species procreates by inseminating a husk, so I assume she has an inseminator of some type (goddamnit I'm going full comic book guy on this...anyways..). Also, he doesn't really fix her, she becomes an outcast in her society and goes through conversion therapy to go back to being non-gendered and is pretty clearly psychologically broken by the end of the episode.

Except if her species has no sex, there is no problem in her being attracted to Riker. They could have just had it be that, Riker and a genderless individual, but they made her feel female.

The episode also goes out of its way to never, ever mention anything about homosexuality. There are all of these talks about what men are interested in, in human sexuality, in the mechanics of it, but gay relationships are never brought up. It's an episode that wants to pretend it's saying something, but it's not.

I've always hated it, but SF Debris does a good job talking about it in his review.

 

[Roland1979]

Spoiler

But will it feature Wesley Crusher?

 

[DrForester]

Closest Star Trek came to homosexuality would probably be the DS9 Episode with Dax and one of the former wives of her symbiote. Their feelings rekindle even though Dax is now a woman.

Guess it COULD be seen as a transgender episode. Probably a bit if a stretch.

 

[cntr]

Garak acts in a very..."sexual" manner during his first meeting with Bashir. But I'm guessing they were ordered to write in his relationship with Ziyal to eliminate that, it never really seemed like a developed relationship.

 

[DrForester]

Garak acts in a very..."sexual" manner during his first meeting with Bashir. But I'm guessing they were ordered to write in his relationship with Ziyal to eliminate that, it never really seemed like a developed relationship.

Well, Garak was never planned. He was going to be a one-off character.

 

[cntr]

Yeah, true. But Ziyal/Garak really does feel like it was demanded by the execs to dissuade Bashir and Garak shippers.

 

[aceface]

Except if her species has no sex, there is no problem in her being attracted to Riker. They could have just had it be that, Riker and a genderless individual, but they made her feel female.

The episode also goes out of its way to never, ever mention anything about homosexuality. There are all of these talks about what men are interested in, in human sexuality, in the mechanics of it, but gay relationships are never brought up. It's an episode that wants to pretend it's saying something, but it's not.

I've always hated it, but SF Debris does a good job talking about it in his review.

Really, it's not saying anything? If anything it's saying something In a blunt, shallow way. It focuses on typical gender roles (what men are interested in, etc) that the typical viewer would find normal and ok and then shows the character being persecuted by her androgynous society for those feelings. The point is the make the viewer think "really, she's being persecuted for that? Well that's perfectly normal behavior!" And then maybe reflect on how some in our society are persecuted for sexual behavior that seems just as normal and ok to them and who are we really to judge what "normal and ok" really are? Yeah it's not brave at all about its depiction of homosexuality but watching that episode as a 12 year old raised in a Catholic household it did get me thinking about those issues.

 

[Pluto]

No? I haven't seen that episode in years but as I remember it as a classic trek "take a social issue and flip it" episode. So, instead of non-gendered/attracted to the same sex people being outcasts it's gendered/ attracted to the opposite sex people who are for that alien species. I wouldn't really say that the character who's Riker's love interest has the characteristics of a female even though she identifies as a female. In the episode they mention how that species procreates by inseminating a husk, so I assume she has an inseminator of some type (goddamnit I'm going full comic book guy on this...anyways..). Also, he doesn't really fix her, she becomes an outcast in her society and goes through conversion therapy to go back to being non-gendered and is pretty clearly psychologically broken by the end of the episode.

On paper the episode doesn't look that bad but watch it again, Soren is played by a female actor, Melinda Culea, who is very attractive and obviously female. Despite all the lip service to no gender/sex Riker falls in love with a woman and the audience is never surprised by that because it's easy to see Soren as a woman, under all the pale make-up she's Melinda Culea after all playing the chick of the month for Riker to bone.
Now imagine if they had cast a male actor as Soren (which is something Jonathan Frakes suggested when he read the script) who declares that she's female and no one on the ship questioning it, that could have been a message.

Closest Star Trek came to homosexuality would probably be the DS9 Episode with Dax and one of the former wives of her symbiote. Their feelings rekindle even though Dax is now a woman.

Guess it COULD be seen as a transgender episode. Probably a bit if a stretch.

It has two women kissing, I'll give it that but the episode also goes out of its way to explain that it's not them who are attracted to each other, it's the slugs in their bellies who were once married when Dax was male and Kahn female, a straight relationship. That was unnecessary, the relationship 100 years ago could have been between two women or men but it wasn't.

Star Trek has done this several times, they did an almost gay episode and an almost trans episode but not really, they use allegories and aliens and all that shit when all they really had to do was a male guest star mention his husband on earth. That's all, it didn't even have to be about a relationship or two queer characters making out in screen if they didn't want to.

Yeah, true. But Ziyal/Garak really does feel like it was demanded by the execs to dissuade Bashir and Garak shippers.

Bashir/Garak was all Andrew Robinson and Alexander Siddig injecting attraction and flirting into their line readings, it was never intended by the writers and they stopped it by introducing Ziyal, it wasn't even a studio executive, Star Trek's own writers stopped it. Progressive my ass, the Garak/Bashir thing was really subtle but apparently even subtlety was too gay for Star Trek.

 

[cntr]

That's kind of sad.

Speaking of Frakes, he's said that he tried to play Riker as bisexual, but that was always unofficial. It makes sense he'd suggest that but get shot down.

 

[TheSecondSpitter]

You may want to stop judging stuff that was written 20 years ago by contemporary standards.

 

[cntr]

You may want to stop judging stuff that was written 20 years ago by contemporary standards.

Of course. I don't think of them as badly as someone of today trying do the same thing. But it's still sad.

 

[Matt]

You may want to stop judging stuff that was written 20 years ago by contemporary standards.

Here were gay people on tv 20 years ago, just not in Star Trek. I'm a fan of the series, but we shouldn't ascribe things to it that just aren't true. On the issue of sexuality, the show has never been as progressive as it should have, or could have been.

 

[Lagamorph]

That's kind of sad.

Speaking of Frakes, he's said that he tried to play Riker as bisexual, but that was always unofficial. It makes sense he'd suggest that but get shot down.

Riker was just a hornball and didn't care who or what.

 

[davepoobond]

That episode was so sad.

I was sad because we would never see any of them again.

 

[Pluto]

You may want to stop judging stuff that was written 20 years ago by contemporary standards.

Or not considering Cheers did an episode featuring gay characters in 1983, I also remember Cagney & Lacey, also an 80s show, doing an episode about a cop who was suspected to be gay and the homophobia he had to endure. Dynasty had Steven Carrington, a gay main character who was in a relationship with another man in 1981 (ultimately retconned to be bisexual and the attempted "straightening" of Steven led to Al Corley leaving the series because he refused to play the character as straight but whatever, the gay relationship existed).

And Star Trek isn't a random series, it always prided itself as being progressive so expecting it to feature at least a single LGBT character isn't too much and it's not like this wasn't already discussed when the shows were on the air. Actors were willing to do it, some writers tried to do it but where stopped by the showrunners, they even went so far as to specifically forbid background extras in Ten Forward being potrayed as gay by holding hands for example.
I think the only time someone was successful was when Whoopi Goldberg refused to say the line "When a man and a woman are in love ..." and it was changed to "When two people ...".

Brannon Braga acknowledged that it was a conscious decision by the producers to not feature gay characters not even as background extras, it was discussed behind the scenes, some people really thought it should be done but they were vetoed.

The biggest problem isn't even that Star Trek didn't do it, it's that they didn't do it and pretended to be progressive at the same time when they really were scared to step on conservative toes.

 

[butalala]

Riker was just a hornball and didn't care who or what.

He was Jack Harkness 20 years before there was a Jack Harkness.

 

[pottuvoi]

Can we get Jeffrey Combs as a regular? Let him be the doctor.

Would make excellent captain as well.

 

[Lagamorph]

He was Jack Harkness 20 years before there was a Jack Harkness.

I bet Riker shagged someone off screen during First Contact and is his own ancestor.

 

[Mengy]

Something like that would be a bit like Master and Commander, which i thought was the best Star Trek movie not in space. I thought that oulled together the different part of the crew to show how the ship works pretty well.

Yeah, I love M&C too, probably one of my top five movies of all time and I watch it regularly. Actually if the new Trek show was simply Master & Commander in space I'd be overjoyed and pay any amount to subscribe to CBS streaming!

Well, Garak was never planned. He was going to be a one-off character.

Garak is still one of my favorite Star Trek characters of all time. I need to rewatch all of DS9, it's been awhile.

 

[Drazgul]

That's kind of sad.

Speaking of Frakes, he's said that he tried to play Riker as bisexual, but that was always unofficial. It makes sense he'd suggest that but get shot down.

I dunno, I thought it was pretty obvious in a few episodes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf9oD_xl8mI

 

[Fuchsdh]

Or not considering Cheers did an episode featuring gay characters in 1983, I also remember Cagney & Lacey, also an 80s show, doing an episode about a cop who was suspected to be gay and the homophobia he had to endure. Dynasty had Steven Carrington, a gay main character who was in a relationship with another man in 1981 (ultimately retconned to be bisexual and the attempted "straightening" of Steven led to Al Corley leaving the series because he refused to play the character as straight but whatever, the gay relationship existed).

And Star Trek isn't a random series, it always prided itself as being progressive so expecting it to feature at least a single LGBT character isn't too much and it's not like this wasn't already discussed when the shows were on the air. Actors were willing to do it, some writers tried to do it but where stopped by the showrunners, they even went so far as to specifically forbid background extras in Ten Forward being potrayed as gay by holding hands for example.
I think the only time someone was successful was when Whoopi Goldberg refused to say the line "When a man and a woman are in love ..." and it was changed to "When two people ...".

Brannon Braga acknowledged that it was a conscious decision by the producers to not feature gay characters not even as background extras, it was discussed behind the scenes, some people really thought it should be done but they were vetoed.

The biggest problem isn't even that Star Trek didn't do it, it's that they didn't do it and pretended to be progressive at the same time when they really were scared to step on conservative toes.

Progressive isn't just a single label (and it's not always one you can apply only to good social movements). Star Trek can be ahead of the curve in some ways and behind it in others.

Bashir/Garak was all Andrew Robinson and Alexander Siddig injecting attraction and flirting into their line readings, it was never intended by the writers and they stopped it by introducing Ziyal, it wasn't even a studio executive, Star Trek's own writers stopped it. Progressive my ass, the Garak/Bashir thing was really subtle but apparently even subtlety was too gay for Star Trek.

According to Robinson:

I had planned Garak not as homosexual or heterosexual but omnisexual, and the first episode I had with Bashir played that way gave people fits. So I had to remove that characteristic from him."

Yeah, I love M&C too, probably one of my top five movies of all time and I watch it regularly. Actually if the new Trek show was simply Master & Commander in space I'd be overjoyed and pay any amount to subscribe to CBS streaming!

Yep it's a great movie, I've been meaning to read the books for years now. Definitely would like some of that flavor in Star Trek, but with Meyer on board I assume we'll get some of it.

 

[Square2015]

Well if memory serves (geeze haven't thought about this since the 90s),
the timeline was:

1998 - the last year I thought about this

2245 - Enterprise NCC-1701 launched
2240s - NEW Star Trek movies
2264~2269 - original TV series
2271 - ST: the motion picture
2281 - ST II. III. IV
2280s - ST V.VI

2360s - ST: TNG series
2370s - ST: DS9 series, Voyager

 

[Fuchsdh]

Well if memory serves (geeze haven't thought about this since the 90s),
the timeline was:

1998 - the last year I thought about this

2245 - Enterprise NCC-1701 launched
2240s - NEW Star Trek movies
2264~2269 - original TV series
2271 - ST: the motion picture
2281 - ST II. III. IV
2280s - ST V.VI

2360s - ST: TNG series
2370s - ST: DS9 series, Voyager

Nemesis was 2379 and was released 2002. If they decided to continue with the prime universe, we'd be up to the year 2393. That's what I don't really see the "we have to go forward in time and tell new stories!" argument. They can set a series in the contemporaneous time that the 90s shows used and we still have plenty of distance from the last events we saw to change the universe and the kinds of stories they want to tell, with the benefit that they can call on old characters or build on old plots.

Or maybe I just wanna' see crazy secret agent Bashir fighting a one-man-war against Section 31 in an episode.

 

[Escape Goat]

I was sad because we would never see any of them again.

o rly

checkmate

 

[davepoobond]

o rly

checkmate

she showed up before that lower crew episode too, didn't she?

the point was that all of them as a group having their own episode again was a 0% chance

 

[BorkBork]

Fuller? Meyer? Wow.

I've been at peace with the franchise being dead for a long time now... but this intrigues me.

 

[Not]

Star Trek was mostly was as progressive as its decade would let it be. TOS and TNG are strictly heteronormative and gender role-adhering (the most glaring issue), the women are in skirts and one-piece jumpsuits (while the dudes in TNG got 2-pieces by the 4th season), etc...

Tasha Yar as security chief in 1987 was pretty cool though. Even though it couldn't last and she still got middle-naked by the second episode. 2bfair, no one was complaining.

Image searching this sucked. I hate you Internet.

 

[jstripes]

But will it feature Wesley Crusher?

Only if you don't stop touching yourself.

 

[cntr]

Nemesis was 2379 and was released 2002. If they decided to continue with the prime universe, we'd be up to the year 2393. That's what I don't really see the "we have to go forward in time and tell new stories!" argument. They can set a series in the contemporaneous time that the 90s shows used and we still have plenty of distance from the last events we saw to change the universe and the kinds of stories they want to tell, with the benefit that they can call on old characters or build on old plots.

Or maybe I just wanna' see crazy secret agent Bashir fighting a one-man-war against Section 31 in an episode.

I'm iffy on setting it in a concurrent setting because of Enterprise-style *wink wink* teases about the previous series.

 

[Matt]

Star Trek was mostly was as progressive as its decade would let it be. TOS and TNG are strictly heteronormative and gender role-adhering (the most glaring issue), the women are in skirts and one-piece jumpsuits (while the dudes in TNG got 2-pieces by the 4th season), etc...

I just think that gives them too much leeway. There were gay people on television before TNG, and in most shows women weren't running around in purposefully too small skintight bodysuits.

 

[Roland1979]

Star Trek has always been pretty progressive but it still treated women poorly (forcing Marina Sirtis to wear a catsuit for most of TNG and the dabo girls in DS9) often. Voyager was much better about it.

well...

 

[DrForester]

DS9 did change Kira's uniform, I think in season 3 at some point.

Seem to remember reading somewhere that there were complaints that it was "too sexy", but that Nana Visitor loved it. Certainly is more form fitting, but nowhere near what Seven of Nine wore.

 

[funkystudent]

DS9 did change Kira's uniform, I think in season 3 at some point.

Seem to remember reading somewhere that there were complaints that it was "too sexy", but that Nana Visitor loved it. Certainly is more form fitting, but nowhere near what Seven of Nine wore.

That was her mirror universe catsuit that got those complaints that actually Nana loved. Not sure if the actual day to day uniform ever had issues. All they really changed there was removing the shoulder pads.


That latex catsuit in the mirror eps sure was something though.... DS9 writers had way to much fun making characters bone each other or turning sex appeal up to 11 in those episodes. I think I remember a subplot of mirror Kira trying to bone herself.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

Marina Sirtis looked so much better in a starfleet uniform, though. Hell, even the TOS movies didn;t allow the TNG and Voyager bullshit. I feel like a new series wouldn't have the same level of explotation, because fan outrage would be huge from both the established fan base and others with no interest at all. T'pol's "sexy" scenes seemed weird, outdated and entirely out of place ib the mid 2000's, let alone now.