What about the boots?

[rotorbotor]

In TOS they wore those cool looking boots with the trousers tucked in at the bottom into the top of the shoes and as a result the trousers were puffed OUT in wrinkles making them look really,really cool in my opinion,so much that I wanted to do the same when I was at school.

Question is will in Star Trek 11 WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE BOOTS WITH TROUSERS TUCKED INTO THE TOP OF THE SHOES OR BOOT or do you want to see trousers over the boot leg tops?

I hope it is trousers tucked into boot tops.

 

[Plum]

Zot-boots? I forget.

 

[shapeshifter]

I'd prefer the TUCKED style.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The trousers in TOS were not tucked in. They were NOT. REALLY.

They were cuffed, with a blouse-like "ring cuff" at about calf-height. The boots themselves were slightly taller, so that the cuff was about two and a half inches down along the length of the boot. The trouser WAS bloused over the boot, not tucked inside. They wore long black knee-length socks underneath the whole deal, so in case the trousers rode up too high, you wouldn't see pasty-white shins...

I always LOVED that sort of boot... but it's not all that practical (ie, the TOS boot was more of a "dress shoe" and less of a piece of functional footwear). I'd love it if the basic design... high on the calf, black, smooth exterior... was kept, but that the overall shape was made more like modern athletic shoes, with much more functional treads, to make them more effective as comfortable, supportive non-slip footwear for use aboard ship.

I'd also like to see DIFFERENT boots used for landing party assignments, much more like combat boots (ie, heavier for better protection, really big chunky treads, etc).

It might be nice to see the classic boots used for "dress uniform" variations, however.

If you want a pair of your own... check this out.
http://www.caboots.com/c=bB1sx3Sz3Uhzccj5BolplJUsP/product/1XCSSTARTK/CUSTOM_STARTREK_BOOTS.html

Or, alternatively, check this out...
http://motorcowboy.zoovy.com/category/.startrekboots/

 

[rotorbotor]

Cary L. Brown said:
The trousers in TOS were not tucked in. They were NOT. REALLY.

They were cuffed, with a blouse-like "ring cuff" at about calf-height. The boots themselves were slightly taller, so that the cuff was about two and a half inches down along the length of the boot. The trouser WAS bloused over the boot, not tucked inside. They wore long black knee-length socks underneath the whole deal, so in case the trousers rode up too high, you wouldn't see pasty-white shins...

I always LOVED that sort of boot... but it's not all that practical (ie, the TOS boot was more of a "dress shoe" and less of a piece of functional footwear). I'd love it if the basic design... high on the calf, black, smooth exterior... was kept, but that the overall shape was made more like modern athletic shoes, with much more functional treads, to make them more effective as comfortable, supportive non-slip footwear for use aboard ship.

I'd also like to see DIFFERENT boots used for landing party assignments, much more like combat boots (ie, heavier for better protection, really big chunky treads, etc).

It might be nice to see the classic boots used for "dress uniform" variations, however.

If you want a pair of your own... check this out.
http://www.caboots.com/c=bB1sx3Sz3Uhzccj5BolplJUsP/product/1XCSSTARTK/CUSTOM_STARTREK_BOOTS.html

[image]http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5231/startrekcusxy4.jpg[/image]

Or, alternatively, check this out...
http://motorcowboy.zoovy.com/category/.startrekboots/

They were tucked in.

The trousers were tucked in but because there the boot cuff was close fitting the the excess trouser leg length would not go all the way to the ankle and hence the puffed look.


Your explanation is overly complicated and unrealistic and defies occams razor.I mean why on earth would they go to ll this complication when the simplist thing would be to do as I explained as above?

I have tried this already and it works.If the trouser is thick and and the cuff is close fitting then theexcess trouser length will not go down all the way resulting in the bunched/puffy look.

Your cooked up explanation is way over complicated and unrealistic in practice.

 

[Green Shirt]

Ducks for cover, while looking for a screencap of Kirk not tucking his pantleg into his boot in "Wink of an Eye".

Maybe he used occam's razor to cut off the excess material.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

rotorbotor said:

Cary L. Brown said:
The trousers in TOS were not tucked in. They were NOT. REALLY.

They were cuffed, with a blouse-like "ring cuff" at about calf-height. The boots themselves were slightly taller, so that the cuff was about two and a half inches down along the length of the boot. The trouser WAS bloused over the boot, not tucked inside. They wore long black knee-length socks underneath the whole deal, so in case the trousers rode up too high, you wouldn't see pasty-white shins...

I always LOVED that sort of boot... but it's not all that practical (ie, the TOS boot was more of a "dress shoe" and less of a piece of functional footwear). I'd love it if the basic design... high on the calf, black, smooth exterior... was kept, but that the overall shape was made more like modern athletic shoes, with much more functional treads, to make them more effective as comfortable, supportive non-slip footwear for use aboard ship.

I'd also like to see DIFFERENT boots used for landing party assignments, much more like combat boots (ie, heavier for better protection, really big chunky treads, etc).

It might be nice to see the classic boots used for "dress uniform" variations, however.

They were tucked in.

The trousers were tucked in but because there the boot cuff was close fitting the the excess trouser leg length would not go all the way to the ankle and hence the puffed look.

Wanna bet?

Need I say more?

Your explanation is overly complicated and unrealistic and defies occams razor.I mean why on earth would they go to ll this complication when the simplist thing would be to do as I explained as above?

I HATE it when someone tries to explain their PERSONAL OPINION as though somehow "occam's razor" justifies it. Particularly when they're WRONG.

My explanation wasn't my GUESS at how they did it. My explanation was THE ACTUAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER. Whether or not you happen to like it.

I have tried this already and it works.If the trouser is thick and and the cuff is close fitting then theexcess trouser length will not go down all the way resulting in the bunched/puffy look.

I wore my trousers bloused for years. It was part of the uniform I wore every single day for the majority of my twenties. So I've "tried this" too. Plus, I happen to know how the original uniforms were made, and have even had the opportunity to examine original series boots and trousers in person.

Have you?

Your cooked up explanation is way over complicated and unrealistic in practice.

So, you've simultaneously demonstrated your own ignorance (which is defined as having a lack of knowledge about a particular subject... something that IS forgivable) and your own (unjustified) ARROGANCE by being insulting in your attempts to "correct" me on this? ("Cooked up" is how I'd describe YOUR explanation... since you made it up from your own personal fantasy life, it seems. It does NOT in any way describe MY statement, however.)

Sorry. You were WRONG. The pictures I posted above, which are taken from the original show, demonstrate that very clearly.

Can I have an apology for your insulting comments from above, please?

 

[Green Shirt]

Dag, this was shaping up to be a good one. Too bad its over. Game, set and match to Commodore Brown.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

rotorbotor said:
Your explanation is overly complicated and unrealistic and defies occams razor.I mean why on earth would they go to ll this complication when the simplist thing would be to do as I explained as above?

Because tucking your pant-legs into your boots can be damned uncomfortable. When I served in the Army I initially tucked my uniform pants into my boots, but later chose instead to use a blousing ring--very similar to what Cary describes above--because a) it was vastly more comfortable and b) my pants didn't pull out of my boots as they did from time to time when tucking them in.

The practice is far from "unrealistic" since it is very common in present day militaries. And the simple way is not always the best way.

Your cooked up explanation is way over complicated and unrealistic in practice.

Worked well in practice for me for six years.

 

[estrea]

Boy, am I ever glad my uniform pants had stirrup straps! Not always comfortable for long walks and long periods of standing, but they never came untucked. <cheesy grin>

BTW, I totally agree that in TOS the boots were more 'dress boot' style than practical footwear on a ship -- I, too, would like to see something with a little 'grip' on the sole. Inertial dampeners or not, on away missions you may not always be walking on smooth pavement. :-)

 

[rotorbotor]

Cary L. Brown said:

rotorbotor said:

Cary L. Brown said:
The trousers in TOS were not tucked in. They were NOT. REALLY.

They were cuffed, with a blouse-like "ring cuff" at about calf-height. The boots themselves were slightly taller, so that the cuff was about two and a half inches down along the length of the boot. The trouser WAS bloused over the boot, not tucked inside. They wore long black knee-length socks underneath the whole deal, so in case the trousers rode up too high, you wouldn't see pasty-white shins...

I always LOVED that sort of boot... but it's not all that practical (ie, the TOS boot was more of a "dress shoe" and less of a piece of functional footwear). I'd love it if the basic design... high on the calf, black, smooth exterior... was kept, but that the overall shape was made more like modern athletic shoes, with much more functional treads, to make them more effective as comfortable, supportive non-slip footwear for use aboard ship.

I'd also like to see DIFFERENT boots used for landing party assignments, much more like combat boots (ie, heavier for better protection, really big chunky treads, etc).

It might be nice to see the classic boots used for "dress uniform" variations, however.

They were tucked in.

The trousers were tucked in but because there the boot cuff was close fitting the the excess trouser leg length would not go all the way to the ankle and hence the puffed look.

Wanna bet?

[image]http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9711/startrekbootsactc4.jpg[/image]

Need I say more?

Your explanation is overly complicated and unrealistic and defies occams razor.I mean why on earth would they go to ll this complication when the simplist thing would be to do as I explained as above?

I HATE it when someone tries to explain their PERSONAL OPINION as though somehow "occam's razor" justifies it. Particularly when they're WRONG.

My explanation wasn't my GUESS at how they did it. My explanation was THE ACTUAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER. Whether or not you happen to like it.

I have tried this already and it works.If the trouser is thick and and the cuff is close fitting then theexcess trouser length will not go down all the way resulting in the bunched/puffy look.

I wore my trousers bloused for years. It was part of the uniform I wore every single day for the majority of my twenties. So I've "tried this" too. Plus, I happen to know how the original uniforms were made, and have even had the opportunity to examine original series boots and trousers in person.

Have you?

Your cooked up explanation is way over complicated and unrealistic in practice.

So, you've simultaneously demonstrated your own ignorance (which is defined as having a lack of knowledge about a particular subject... something that IS forgivable) and your own (unjustified) ARROGANCE by being insulting in your attempts to "correct" me on this? ("Cooked up" is how I'd describe YOUR explanation... since you made it up from your own personal fantasy life, it seems. It does NOT in any way describe MY statement, however.)

Sorry. You were WRONG. The pictures I posted above, which are taken from the original show, demonstrate that very clearly.

Can I have an apology for your insulting comments from above, please?

Apology for what?

Apology for you to photoshop those pictures?

In the series we never saw extreme close ups of the boots and yet lo and behold in your desperation to be right you cook up fakes.You failed to mention what episode and what scene they came from.

I can just imagine you huddled over your computer in your basement,desperately trying to create those pictures to satisfy your craving to be right.


If you think I am wrong just say I am wrong.No need to waste your time making pictures up.

Why would the director show extreme close ups of boots I ask you.You said you worked with materials?

So what? I worked with sugar cane.I worked with cats and dogs.I did not work with photoshop.I find it terrible that people need to photoshop to prove wrong from right.I feel this is very demeaning to yourself and very insulting to me.

 

[Michael]

^ And I guess TrekCore.com photoshopped the pictures, too: Here and here.

 

[Superman]

rotorbotor said:

Cary L. Brown said:

rotorbotor said:

Cary L. Brown said:
The trousers in TOS were not tucked in. They were NOT. REALLY.

They were cuffed, with a blouse-like "ring cuff" at about calf-height. The boots themselves were slightly taller, so that the cuff was about two and a half inches down along the length of the boot. The trouser WAS bloused over the boot, not tucked inside. They wore long black knee-length socks underneath the whole deal, so in case the trousers rode up too high, you wouldn't see pasty-white shins...

I always LOVED that sort of boot... but it's not all that practical (ie, the TOS boot was more of a "dress shoe" and less of a piece of functional footwear). I'd love it if the basic design... high on the calf, black, smooth exterior... was kept, but that the overall shape was made more like modern athletic shoes, with much more functional treads, to make them more effective as comfortable, supportive non-slip footwear for use aboard ship.

I'd also like to see DIFFERENT boots used for landing party assignments, much more like combat boots (ie, heavier for better protection, really big chunky treads, etc).

It might be nice to see the classic boots used for "dress uniform" variations, however.

They were tucked in.

The trousers were tucked in but because there the boot cuff was close fitting the the excess trouser leg length would not go all the way to the ankle and hence the puffed look.

Wanna bet?

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9711/startrekbootsactc4.jpg

Need I say more?

Your explanation is overly complicated and unrealistic and defies occams razor.I mean why on earth would they go to ll this complication when the simplist thing would be to do as I explained as above?

I HATE it when someone tries to explain their PERSONAL OPINION as though somehow "occam's razor" justifies it. Particularly when they're WRONG.

My explanation wasn't my GUESS at how they did it. My explanation was THE ACTUAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER. Whether or not you happen to like it.

I have tried this already and it works.If the trouser is thick and and the cuff is close fitting then theexcess trouser length will not go down all the way resulting in the bunched/puffy look.

I wore my trousers bloused for years. It was part of the uniform I wore every single day for the majority of my twenties. So I've "tried this" too. Plus, I happen to know how the original uniforms were made, and have even had the opportunity to examine original series boots and trousers in person.

Have you?

Your cooked up explanation is way over complicated and unrealistic in practice.

So, you've simultaneously demonstrated your own ignorance (which is defined as having a lack of knowledge about a particular subject... something that IS forgivable) and your own (unjustified) ARROGANCE by being insulting in your attempts to "correct" me on this? ("Cooked up" is how I'd describe YOUR explanation... since you made it up from your own personal fantasy life, it seems. It does NOT in any way describe MY statement, however.)

Sorry. You were WRONG. The pictures I posted above, which are taken from the original show, demonstrate that very clearly.

Can I have an apology for your insulting comments from above, please?

Apology for what?

Apology for you to photoshop those pictures?

In the series we never saw extreme close ups of the boots and yet lo and behold in your desperation to be right you cook up fakes.You failed to mention what episode and what scene they came from.

I can just imagine you huddled over your computer in your basement,desperately trying to create those pictures to satisfy your craving to be right.


If you think I am wrong just say I am wrong.No need to waste your time making pictures up.

Why would the director show extreme close ups of boots I ask you.You said you worked with materials?

So what? I worked with sugar cane.I worked with cats and dogs.I did not work with photoshop.I find it terrible that people need to photoshop to prove wrong from right.I feel this is very demeaning to yourself and very insulting to me.

Yeah, that's right. Cary Photoshopped those images.

You're a troll, plain and simple.

Please return to the waiting underside of the bridge from whence you crawled.

\S/


edited for page stretching- KM

 

[TIN_MAN]

Weren't the trousers in the pilot eps velcroed over the boots which had velcro at the tops?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Rather than respond to the nasty post from above, I've chosen to hit "report to mod" and let the mod handle it.

Now, as for Tin Man's comment...

TIN_MAN said:Weren't the trousers in the pilot eps velcroed over the boots which had velcro at the tops?

I actually don't know. I never saw the Cage trousers or boots up-close. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if they did something like what you describe... but I don't believe it could have been Velcro, since at that time I don't believe Velcro was commercially available, was it? If memory serves, it didn't hit the commercial market until the early 70s.

Still... there are other similar approaches which could be taken. Anything from snaps (which I can easily see being used!) to double-sided tape.

However, someone ought to pull up their DVDs of WNMHGB and The Cage and take a few quick caps. I'm pretty busy now, and besides... wouldn't want to be accused of any further photoshopping.

 

[Green Shirt]

rotorbotor said:
So what? I worked with sugar cane.

Shouldn't that be co-caine?

 

[EnsignJulka]

The boots are soooo groovy!

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Cary L. Brown said:
...However, someone ought to pull up their DVDs of WNMHGB and The Cage and take a few quick caps. I'm pretty busy now, and besides... wouldn't want to be accused of any further photoshopping.

The pants have been pretty constant throughout.

The Cage:

WNMHGB:

In full disclosure, I used photoshop to make the collage and the lighten the photos, but the pants themselves were not touched

 

[PKTrekGirl]

rotorbotor said:

Cary L. Brown said:

rotorbotor said:

Cary L. Brown said:
The trousers in TOS were not tucked in. They were NOT. REALLY.

They were cuffed, with a blouse-like "ring cuff" at about calf-height. The boots themselves were slightly taller, so that the cuff was about two and a half inches down along the length of the boot. The trouser WAS bloused over the boot, not tucked inside. They wore long black knee-length socks underneath the whole deal, so in case the trousers rode up too high, you wouldn't see pasty-white shins...

I always LOVED that sort of boot... but it's not all that practical (ie, the TOS boot was more of a "dress shoe" and less of a piece of functional footwear). I'd love it if the basic design... high on the calf, black, smooth exterior... was kept, but that the overall shape was made more like modern athletic shoes, with much more functional treads, to make them more effective as comfortable, supportive non-slip footwear for use aboard ship.

I'd also like to see DIFFERENT boots used for landing party assignments, much more like combat boots (ie, heavier for better protection, really big chunky treads, etc).

It might be nice to see the classic boots used for "dress uniform" variations, however.

They were tucked in.

The trousers were tucked in but because there the boot cuff was close fitting the the excess trouser leg length would not go all the way to the ankle and hence the puffed look.

Wanna bet?

Need I say more?

Your explanation is overly complicated and unrealistic and defies occams razor.I mean why on earth would they go to ll this complication when the simplist thing would be to do as I explained as above?

I HATE it when someone tries to explain their PERSONAL OPINION as though somehow "occam's razor" justifies it. Particularly when they're WRONG.

My explanation wasn't my GUESS at how they did it. My explanation was THE ACTUAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER. Whether or not you happen to like it.

I have tried this already and it works.If the trouser is thick and and the cuff is close fitting then theexcess trouser length will not go down all the way resulting in the bunched/puffy look.

I wore my trousers bloused for years. It was part of the uniform I wore every single day for the majority of my twenties. So I've "tried this" too. Plus, I happen to know how the original uniforms were made, and have even had the opportunity to examine original series boots and trousers in person.

Have you?

Your cooked up explanation is way over complicated and unrealistic in practice.

So, you've simultaneously demonstrated your own ignorance (which is defined as having a lack of knowledge about a particular subject... something that IS forgivable) and your own (unjustified) ARROGANCE by being insulting in your attempts to "correct" me on this? ("Cooked up" is how I'd describe YOUR explanation... since you made it up from your own personal fantasy life, it seems. It does NOT in any way describe MY statement, however.)

Sorry. You were WRONG. The pictures I posted above, which are taken from the original show, demonstrate that very clearly.

Can I have an apology for your insulting comments from above, please?

Apology for what?

Apology for you to photoshop those pictures?

In the series we never saw extreme close ups of the boots and yet lo and behold in your desperation to be right you cook up fakes.You failed to mention what episode and what scene they came from.

I can just imagine you huddled over your computer in your basement,desperately trying to create those pictures to satisfy your craving to be right.


If you think I am wrong just say I am wrong.No need to waste your time making pictures up.

Why would the director show extreme close ups of boots I ask you.You said you worked with materials?

So what? I worked with sugar cane.I worked with cats and dogs.I did not work with photoshop.I find it terrible that people need to photoshop to prove wrong from right.I feel this is very demeaning to yourself and very insulting to me.

rotobotor, please knock off the unsubstantiated accusations immediately. I know you are new here, but I strongly suggest that you go and read the board rules. Because next time you make unsubstantiated accusations such as these, you'll earn yourself a warning for trolling.

Thanks.

And seriously....I really cannot BELIEVE that you guys are getting this worked up over pant leg styles on Trek uniforms.

Let's just all take a step back and relax. I think that we should all try and insert just a wee bit of perspective into this forum, okay?

Seriously.

 

[gastrof]

Getting back on subject, guys, this is coming from someone who wants NOTHING of the old continuity altered one smidgen, except for the characters' faces...

If the pants are black and so are the boots, I'll say it's the same.

Let's worry about REAL problems...

Like what hairstyle they'll go with for Uhura...