Kirk & the Orion cadet- was it appropriate? Indecent? Cool?
- Thread starter Chrisisall
- Start date
But why should it be different? What's wrong with a mild PG-rated sex scene in a PG-rated movie? In a series that has never been known for being terribly puritanical? NextGen showed lovers in bed occasionally, and that was twenty years ago!
Again, what is it about STAR TREK that makes you think it should be held to a different standard than the rest of modern-day science fiction?
But why should Trek be different? Remember, you're the one asking for Trek to change; the movie has the same attitude towards sexuality that Trek has always had.
Edit: looks like we're tag-teaming, Greg.
Yeah, but you were much more succinct!
Part of the problem, of course, is that Lightinspire seems to be taking for granted that showing a couple in bed, even with their naughty bits covered, is a Bad Thing that needs to be avoided if necessay.
I'm not sure most people share that assumption . . . .
Part of the problem, of course, is that Lightinspire seems to be taking for granted that showing a couple in bed, even with their naughty bits covered, is a Bad Thing that needs to be avoided if necessay.
I'm not sure most people share that assumption . . . .
You're worried about the manatees, too?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
I'm with number6
I can see what you're saying, but once the step is taken to bring religion, the Young Earth and all of that other freight into the discussion, we're no longer really talking about the movie in general or the Kirk/Gaila scene in particular, are we? That discussion is larger than this topic and rightly belongs in a thread of its own (and preferably in another forum altogether, where everyone can really let their hair down, because you know that it's going to go that way, sooner or later.)
I also need to wag a finger at the suggestions that Lightinspire watch movies and series which are clearly not going to be his cup of tea. He may hold a different opinion than most here about what Star Trek ought to be and ought not, but that doesn't make him fair game for baiting.
Fair enough. And I'm not even going to touch the whole creationism thing, which has nothing to do with the ever-fascinating subject of sex in Star Trek . . . . .
Why should Star Trek be different?
[damn, beaten by a long shot]
MOAR.
Do you go to the beach or swimming pool?
number6
Vice Admiral
Since the issue seems to be morality and thinking that Trek should be more "kid friendly," the larger issue becomes pretty clear, because once we start talking about limiting one aspect of what Star Trek has been known for for the last 40+ years, the other issues become very relevant. What lines we need to cross and avoid all together as the result of an individual's personal sensibilities certainly begs the larger question, which I feel is a very valid point to bring up here.
If this poster believes that there are things that are OK and not OK for Star Trek and feels the need to dictate those terms based on an individualistic sense of what's best for everyone else, then it is certainly reasonable to ask these other questions.
Clearly Star Trek isn't for this person and shouldn't be changed for everyone else as a result of this specific personal point of view. Clearly this person has never watched an episode of Star Trek or understands its underlying perpose (beyond being profitable-which this film clearly demonstrates).
Last edited:
Lightinspire
Lieutenant Commander
do I go to the beach or pool? nope, hate the beach and allergic to the chlorine they put in the pool. I don't know about where you live, but around here from I'm told by my nieces and wife, people don't kiss and make out at the pool in their under wear..people act like they are mature enough to keep all that in the bedroom..a poster said I never watched any episode? Hummm, I have every episode of TNG on dvd and all the movies so I know a good bit about it..I'm just saying what is the harm in being different. I like Star Trek but why does it have to change with the times..if there are a lot of sex in society why does Star Trek have to follow suit??
Lightinspire
Lieutenant Commander
Because we see sex everywhere we turn, gets kinda boring after awhile..that is why it should be different, be a refreshing movie,not like the rest of Hollywood with all the sex, gays, drug use, etc....be different..stand out in the crowd...make a statement that says "We choose to be different, not follow the boring ole society".
Last edited by a moderator:
On the planet I'm from, Gaila in her underwear is anything but boring.
Just sayin'.
The only acceptable answer is: All three. And it was good! -- RR
number6
Vice Admiral
So now it's sex, gays, drug use, etc????
Star Trek has always had a sexy element to it. Every series and every movie.
That's why I am unconvinced that you have actually watched the show.
The harm in what you seem to suggest Trek needs to do is that it immasculates its message. Trek has always held a mirror to contemporary society in its story telling. That's what they do. To ignore this takes something away from the message. That's not what Star Trek is about.
And then where do you draw the line?? So far you're objecting to sex (which there is none), gays (which Trek didn't do in this film but has addressed in its own oblique way) and drug use (which there is none in this film.)
Trek has tackled these issues. They have also tackled Religion, Politics, War, Race, Discrimination, Reproductive rights, Slavery, Terrorism, and a whole host of other things you seem to disapprove of.
The harm in not doing these kinds of stories is this: It just wouldn't be Star Trek.
Last edited by a moderator:
Number 2 would have a problem with Trek, I conjure.