I don't think I understand where you're coming from at all now. Star Trek should avoid dealing with issues of morality? It should remain wedded to 40 year old perceptions? Sorry, what you're describing is antithetical to Star Trek.
Kirk & the Orion cadet- was it appropriate? Indecent? Cool?
- Thread starter Chrisisall
- Start date
I don't think I understand where you're coming from at all now. Star Trek should avoid dealing with issues of morality? It should remain wedded to 40 year old perceptions? Sorry, what you're describing is antithetical to Star Trek.
That first sentence really has nothing to do with this topic, and might safely have gone without any response, let alone references to headwear, metallic or otherwise. Wrong forum for that.That first sentence has me wondering what metal you might be using for a hat.conspiracy
Yep, I remember it; everything was either G or M -- no other ratings were deemed necessary in those simpler times, and before 1968 there were no ratings at all. Dr. No on its first run was actually the first movie I can remember seeing at the (drive-in) theater. I would have been four. Of course, I probably slept through a fair bit of the movie, but I think I can safely report that no permanent scarring occurred. That tarantula scene, though...Looking at my copy of Dr. No from 1962 I see its been retro-rated PG. Honey Ryder's scenes with Bond are probably "hotter" than anything in this film. Heck I can recall seeing Bond films and Matt Helms film with my Dad back in the sixties. I was under the age of 10 at that time. They didn't scar me too muchAnyone recall when there was a "M" film rating?
Lightinspire: You're missing the point. As people keep pointing out, STAR TREK hasn't changed one bit. Do we really need to itemize all the episodes and movies in which Kirk or Spock or Riker or Deanna or Worf or Ilia or Dax or whomever had some steamy moments with a sexy guest-star?
Look, I get that you have issues with modern sexual mores. Fair enough. But why do you expect STAR TREK--of all things--to the standard bearer for family-friendly entertainment?
There are movies and tv shows that are designed for young children and people with conservative moral values. STAR TREK is not one of them. It never has been.
The new movie is no more "indecent" than STAR TREK has ever been.
Look, I get that you have issues with modern sexual mores. Fair enough. But why do you expect STAR TREK--of all things--to the standard bearer for family-friendly entertainment?
There are movies and tv shows that are designed for young children and people with conservative moral values. STAR TREK is not one of them. It never has been.
The new movie is no more "indecent" than STAR TREK has ever been.
Oh, you poor, over-exposed child! Sex & violence has warped your mind into a dellusional state!
Have you sought professional help?
I'm intentionally messing up my Son by showing him TOS eps- the idea that touching girls is nice will damage him to no end... like it did me.
MU-HU-HU-HA-HA-HA-HA!
What, and miss Lost in Space, Gilligan's Island and The Avengers?! Pfft! You must be joking.Oh, you poor, over-exposed child! Sex & violence has warped your mind into a dellusional state!
Have you sought professional help?
Good call. I forgot about Altaira's skinny-dipping scene in FORBIDDEN PLANET, way back in the Fifties.
And FORBIDDEN PLANET, let us not forget, was a major influence on a little something called STAR TREK . . . .
Last edited:
Emma Peeled... mmmmmmmm!
I agree.
... What um... does that have to do with anything?
Why does anything new have to change with the times? To appeal to people. Times change BECAUSE people change. There is more sex being shown because people have changed and don't view it is stiffly as they used to. At one point in the past it was inappropriate for a woman to even show her ANKLES. Now look at what girls can wear! Should all women in movies still be covered head to toe at all times, just because that's how it used to be, and movies shouldn't have to change with the times?
I wouldn't bring a child under 13 to see a PG-13 movie either. That's why they have ratings.
Except, I am fairly sure that the target audience of this new Star Trek movie didn't really include people under the age of 13... I think they DID target the movie to the audience they wanted.
number6
Vice Admiral
That first sentence really has nothing to do with this topic, and might safely have gone without any response, let alone references to headwear, metallic or otherwise. Wrong forum for that.That first sentence has me wondering what metal you might be using for a hat.
It has everything to do with the topic. If this slight amount of sexual material is so eggregious to this individual, then it wouldn't stop with this one thing. Next thing you know, other Trek ideals become compromised for the sake of an individual's specific sensibilities and where does it end?? With one link the chain is forged.. To some of us the prophets are wormhole aliens. The great thing about Star Trek is that it has held a mirror to how society views certain aspects of our own humanity. Either it's all ok or none of it is... Lest the manatees decided to stop working.
That first sentence really has nothing to do with this topic, and might safely have gone without any response, let alone references to headwear, metallic or otherwise. Wrong forum for that.That first sentence has me wondering what metal you might be using for a hat.
I'm with number6 -- this is relevant to the topic because the "morality" that Lightinspire is advocating Star Trek to follow is closely linked with a religious viewpoint that obviously includes creationism and a distrust of science. If Star Trek yields to one part of this viewpoint (i.e., the "evils" of sex), then the next demand will be to eliminate references to anything being more than 6000 years old, and so on. Where does it stop once one starts catering to that demographic?
It wouldn't.
@ Lightinspire: Dude, you should see The Watchmen; I think it just might be your kind of movie.
Yeah, I'm bad.
It wouldn't.
@ Lightinspire: Dude, you should see The Watchmen; I think it just might be your kind of movie.
Yeah, I'm bad.
And check out FARSCAPE, too!
Or LEXX... athough I dunno if I would foist that on anyone!
Don't forget the kids!!!! Its based on a comic book!It wouldn't.
@ Lightinspire: Dude, you should see The Watchmen; I think it just might be your kind of movie.
Yeah, I'm bad.
number6
Vice Admiral
Of course they should be able to, but in doing so they give up the right to complain that the movie wasn't "kid-friendly!"Yeah, so what if WATCHMEN is R-rated? People should be able to take their kids to it anyway.
The only movies that are truly kid friendly are the ones made for them and subsequently rated G-for general audiences.
Of course they should be able to, but in doing so they give up the right to complain that the movie wasn't "kid-friendly!"Yeah, so what if WATCHMEN is R-rated? People should be able to take their kids to it anyway.
The only movies that are truly kid friendly are the ones made for them and subsequently rated G-for general audiences.
Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic . . . .
Lightinspire
Lieutenant Commander
I was asked to respond to the creation, etc so I did, so my response was relative to the topic, I was asked for my opinion. Where would it end? I'm not saying that Star Trek so do anything based on my opinion alone..the only thing that would change the direction is the audience and $...
Lightinspire
Lieutenant Commander
You just don't have to be so flagrant about it, that is all I'm saying..of course you can hint all you want, you just don't have to paste it on the screen for all (young and old) to see..they could just have to be kissing, that's all, it doesn't have to show them in the bed and Kirk in his underwear and her in her bra....if you want to see that stuff change channels or go to transformers..why can't Star Trek be different??
That is all I'm trying to get at.