Spoilers R rated content - what does it add?

They don't "need" to. But they can, so why not? Star Trek was always about being ground breaking TV (or so it though of as such). What ground did they break in the last 20 years? So if they want to do a little swearing, or show some T and A just to catch up, let them. I am guessing we haven't seen the last of T and A, or swearing, or something even more "shocking"

Oh and do go watch The Orville. It's pretty cool, and it IS like TNG. Watch it so that you atleast have some idea what others are talking about. Many people who didn't want to watch it, watched it, and like it.

 

The guy's head! It exploded! And then the torso melted! There was a visible spine and ribs and shit, in good lighting, not tucked away in the shadows in the back of a scene, and it was a human being who'd just been walking around and talking about peace and love, not a weird-looking alien.

The question asked in the thread is literally "does Star Trek need it?" You can scroll up to the original post, it's right there in the second paragraph. So, yes, contextualizing Discovery within the larger realm of Star Trek seems fair. And I'm question the premise of the argument that Discovery has outlandishly disturbing violent, profane, and sexual content that's beyond what we've seen before in Star Trek.

What difference there is is superficial, and I think time and familiarity have worn off the rough edges of earlier Star Treks so we've forgotten their references to mutilating and consuming enemy corpses, funny swearing, and the time a woman got sliced in half when she phased through the floor. I think that DSC's content is exactly as necessary and appropriate for the stories they're telling as any prior precedent from Star Trek, and nothing has struck me as gratuitous or pointless.

 

That looked silly to me.

 

And the pretzel mannequins on the Glenn and luau-pig Klingons in the Sarcophagus ship's corpse-room didn't?

 

"Because they can" isn't a good reason. A good reason is that it adds to the drama positively. That it enhances it. I don't feel any of the examples I gave in the OP have enhanced it in anyway. I have asked if people think it does and so far nobody has told me how it does.

There is nothing groundbreaking about pointless gore, profanity or sex that adds nothing to the overall product. We've had that sort of content for 40 years (outside of Trek) and it remains true that it only works when used effectively.

Thanks, but I can't stand MacFarlane and I have a lot of other things higher up on my list. Maybe one day I'll get around to it but I am in no rush to be honest.

 

I don't think it has and apparently if that head exploding thing from Next Generation is an example - ever has. However to play devil's advocate they have the more mature rating. Maybe it gives the viewer a sense of more sophisticated grown up TV.

 

By your logic most or R-rated content can be removed from most content because it doesn't add anything.
Remember, Star Trek until now aired on Network TV, so R-rated content wasn't even a possibility. They could have made Star Trek movies rated R, but made them PG-13 to maximize on potential revenue (plus it would be really weird to see people who never swore before suddenly start swearing)
So now that Star Trek is NOT on network, they can and ARE expanding the horizon. And OMG call the police, the said "fuck" twice, Star Trek is now The Sopranos. And OMG, they showed boobs for 1/4 second. Star Trek is now porn. This is NOTHING compared to what rest of TV is like.
Yes, they are adding this content, because they can. Would it still be Star Trek, if they didn't? Yes. Is it still Star Trek after they added it? YES.

 

Nonsense. I wouldn't advocate removing it from something like Alien or Predator, It adds to the plot. It's made for adults. But that isn't what Trek is. Trek is for families and is about hope and positivity, not gore.

It was in the movies yet in nearly 40 years we've never had or needed an R-rated Trek movie.

Ahhhhhhh. So it's about revenue? This is just a defelction away from my question, which was what has this added to the show so far. You are just retreading the "because they can" argument.

Disingenuous straw man crap. All because you can't answer my question. Once again, how have these things added positively to Discovery's overall content so far?

Well, since it's all and only about "because they can" to you, shall we email the showrunners and see if they'll feature a race of intergalactic killer tomatoes as next season's villains? Ya know, "because they can"?

 

If that's what people think is grown up then they're pretty low brow.

Dealing with complex and mature themes is what's grown up. Not how many times you can show a dismembered body.

 

I've heard a rumor somewhere that the gory death scene from TNG "Conspiracy" was Roddenberry's way of thumbing his nose at American TV censors for being so uptight over the slightest depiction of sexuality but saying nothing about violence. From that perspective, the scene could actually be considered a rather meaningful commentary.

See the following links for screencaps from the disturbing part of "In Theory," where an officer gets embedded in the floor because of a spatial anomaly (I couldn't find a video clip):

http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/thumbnails.php?album=108&page=13

http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/thumbnails.php?album=108&page=14

Kor

 

Have you even seen GoT? It's not even comparable.

 

Yeah the stuff we've seen on Disco isn't even comparable to the gore, violence and sex on GOT. I wasn't particularly phased by the way the dead crew of the Glenn were depicted. They did die in an accident involving faster than light propulsion, it's pretty brutal way to go. In regard to the Klingons, they are a pretty brutal people. In TNG and DS9 i always found it campy and unrealistic that sharp bat'leths never seemed to inflict bloody injuries.

 

The officer embedded in the floor is actually quite sad and I agree, disturbing.

 

Thank goodness Discovery is not held repeatedly to an unfair double-standard.

 

TOS was NOT “for families” when it originally aired and there is no inherent reason why it should ever be (nor is there any reason it can’t be). Adam West’s Batman and Nolan’s Batman are poles apart, yet each is a legitimate take on the character. The more graphic elements in DSC may not be integrated into the storytelling as smoothly as they could be but that’s not an argument against having such elements at all.

And, incidentally, “because they can” is entirely legitimate as a reason for artists to try something. It’s not without risk—but it’s perfectly fine as a motivation. Some of history’s finest works of art were the result of “because they could”.

 

Contrary to everyone's feelings Star Trek is what Star Trek chooses to be. For some fans it should be family-friendly, and for others it should be grittier. As for reality it is whatever the times dictate for it to be to cater to the current audience. Back in 1966 it was a matter of being explicit for its time (Woman in provocative clothes, racial neutrality, etc.). For TNG it was yes more family focused in some senses as 1980s networks were looking to get as many people as possible behind the franchise. For the last few decades it's been up in the air as TV has been weak compared to film, but in recent years the film industry has become more mechanical and TV is becoming the new creative outlet for more vibrant and visceral storytelling ala GOT, Expanse, WestWorld, Etc. Hence ST Discovery aims to be a part of that more visceral, vibrant, and yes mature package that people are eating up. They could care less about family-friendly as families aren't paying for yearly subscriptions to CBS, HBO, Netflix, and so on. It's people ages 17-45 who are paying for those services that they care about, people who are not directly linked to the old family TV era. I know for some that blows but you haven't been handed a lie as producers have made it clear the shows intent and the TV-MA rating makes that doubly clear. Star Trek like any other franchise will bounce around with whatever makes it sell. Nu-BSG is a great example of a more mature take on a 1970s show that was fun, campy, and space adventure driven. Again not because they aimed to rob fans of the old experience but because it sells to current audiences which means a hell of lot more in the industry.

 

This was a pretty 'family friendly' moment from TNG.

 

I still think the Kling-uns were *meant* to be disturbing. It was not titillating, and given the context, one would not expect it to be.

 

Star Trek is not Game of Thrones... never was.

 

What do such elements take away from the story?