Maybe the universal translator can bleep it out
Next year’s ‘Star Trek’ reboot may have naked aliens and swearing, CBS digital chief says
- Thread starter dbcooper
- Start date
In the future there is no fcc
So, Peter Capaldi already has a new job after Doctor Who?
I'd love to see a Star Trek that was done with the sensibilities of the TMP novel, all free love and far out man. TOS at times had some of that vibe but the later productions have gone the other way.
In high school a friend of mine dropped out to join the Navy . I don't recall him ever swearing at school, but when he came back after boot camp he was swearing like a...you guessed it...sailor!
They'd have fun casting the "love instructor", at least.
Shatner would have to do double duty.
I am trying to have hopes for this show but I think its going to wind up sucking. They go back and forth on timelines and it doenst matter. Well it does to the fans. As for swearing and nudity, if its relevant to the story thats one thing but to have but the sake of having it is ridiculous. As someone said earlier the Carol Marcus in bar and pantties, in that godawful Star Trek into darkness, was an example of nonsense to the story.
That's hilarious. All most every time a scantily clad woman has graced the Star Trek stage, it served no real story purpose or relevance. They existed for one reason only, to titillate the male audience. From Vina doing her slave girl dance to Carol changing clothes. Frankly I preferred the Carol scene. It at least seemed natural.
Precisely so. I suppose all the scantily clad women in TOS were to "serve the story" as well? Such as "What Little Girls are Made of" when the male robots are dressed in jumpsuits under the blue/green garment, but the lady just gets that?
Honestly, nudity in Star Trek is the least of my worries, beyond the fact that I think it's merely being done for a viewership bump. Relevant to the story? Great, wonderful and please keep doing that. Irrelevant to the story? Well, it is Star Trek after all.
It doesn't have to be a thumbs up thumbs down situation. I mean, consider that TNG took three years to get its footing. It's not a death-sentence even if the show does starts out sucking. It all depends on the commitment of CBS to make it work.
LMAO Imagine if TNG came out today, with our modern attitudes toward tv shows, behind the scenes turmoil, and so on. And then season 1 comes out and it has episodes like Code of Honor and Justice. People would be having a meltdown. Patience is a virtue.
As a matter of fact, I think it's actually uncommon for a new tv show to have a killer first season. TOS, Walking Dead, Mad Men, they all did. But those are exceptions. Look at season 1 of Seinfeld and try to figure out how that show lasted 9 seasons. It took a while.
Westworld, Mr. Robot, The Man in the High Castle all had great first seasons. People expect to be hooked or they move onto other options. Too much stuff out there for a show that doesn't hit the ground running.
Shows like TNG, DS9, Seinfeld, Frasier, South Park, and a host of other shows prove that sometimes you can have a rocky, inconsistent, or even bad first season, but grow into yourself and improve. If people had jumped shipped on TNG for its first season's quality, we never would have gotten the classic episodes of the later seasons. I'm not saying put up with crap. I'm just saying that some shows have potential in bad first seasons, and sticking with as how like that can yield exceptional quality once they work it out.
I'm not saying it didn't happen in the past, just that the market works differently now. You don't get a year or two or three to work out the kinks now, people will just move on to shows that do have their act together.
Just way too much programming out there for people to stay with something that is stumbling, even if it is "Star Trek".
I think in this day and age many shows actually start with a great first season (because there's a fun concept behind the show) and then end up getting worse and worse with each season because the concept doesn't hold up for ages.
Shows having shitty first seasons usually don't get a second.
Shows having shitty first seasons usually don't get a second.
What's actually more common the last 10 years is shows that have great first seasons and very poor follow-on seasons, ie: 4400, Lost, Heroes(especially), etc
Still, I disagree with the appraisal that STNG was all poor for 2 seasons, it certainly wasn't..it had almost 20 Emmy nominations, a Peabody award and some Hugo noms as well, not to mention record breaking ratings.
RAMA
Still, I disagree with the appraisal that STNG was all poor for 2 seasons, it certainly wasn't..it had almost 20 Emmy nominations, a Peabody award and some Hugo noms as well, not to mention record breaking ratings.
RAMA
Similar threads
