I was eleven when it came out. I went and saw it. I don't think it scarred me for life, but maybe it did.
My son saw a section of a James Bond film and spent the next three days perching on things pretending to be a "siper." My daughter saw a movie with a sword fight, and now attacks my legs with whatever sword like object she can find lol. My kids are very imitative, so we try to be careful. No need for them to be setting up a torture room for their stuffed animals or whatnot.
That's where discussions about what they've seen come into play. For the four year old, the two year old is a bit young to understand.
Politely, I disagree. There are still episodes that I avoid because they make me uncomfortable from a squeamish point of view, not to mention the full body horror of TWOK. I don't see the barriers that are being argued for. For starters, the "fan base" if CBS is marketing towards that way, is arguably older and more mature. Secondly, even i I wanted to expose my children to Star Trek, I will not be starting with DIS. I personally would want to start with the material that they might enjoy. My wife, for instance, cared little for TOS or the films, but thoroughly enjoyed DS9. Same thing with Star Wars. I'm not starting my family off with Episode 7 or Rogue One, arguably more violent episodes. I don't always agree with TV-MA, and it may seem a barrier, but I think that CBS is also looking towards a much older audience. Which, as odd as it sounds, could be a positive thing. The idea that Star Trek should remain static and unchanging is one I find mystifying.
I don't really see what the big deal is. Everybody is different and reacts to things in different ways. Like I said. I was five when TVH came out on my mom's birthday. I got to go with her to see it an loved it, and started watching the TOS episodes the local network aired Saturday afternoons. That following Christmas we got our first VCR. And my parents let me see the first three films. Loved them all, along with BttF and the first two Supes. They also let me see Raiders, Short Circuit, Ghostbusters, and Gremlins, and they all terrified the shit out of me. I was like 10 or 11 before I ever finished Gremlins. Of course, about a year later TNG comes around and my more mature tastes of a six-year-old was all "What the heck is this crap?" Really though. This just seems like a circular argument over nothing. "Ugg... New Trek isn't doing enough for the old fans!" "If Star Trek is going to survive, it needs need blood!" "OMG! They're trying to make it appeal to the younger generation with their "Walking Game of Breaking Dead Anarchy Thrones!" "Dammit! With this TV-MA rating it's cutting itself off from the younger generation!"
Here is the part on rating I think people are missing. For TV shows (unlike movies) there is no ratings board. The networks pick and decide their own rating. That is how hannibal isn't TV-MA. So IMO they only did this just to give themselves more freedom with the show. Doesnt mean they have to take advantage of it.
When my daughter was a "tweener" (12 or 13 years old or so), one her her friends said that her parents wouldn't let her listen to the song Get the Party Started by "Pink" because it had "a bad word" (there is a line in the song that goes "I'll be burnin' rubber, you'll be kissin' my ass"). While I don't think a 13 year old should be saying "you'll be kissin' my ass", I also didn't see anything wrong with my own daughter listening to the song. But then I considered what my daughter's friend said, and I began to wonder if I was being a bad parent.... ...However, I came to the conclusion that it was fine for my daughter to listen to that song and hear those lyrics -- and here's why: Even though I don't think a 12 or 13 year old should say things such as "kissin' my ass", I had already taught my daughter not to speak that way. I mean, a 13 year-old is going to hear her peers and other kids at school speak that way; there is nothing stopping her from hearing the phrase "kiss my ass" -- even if I forbid her from listening to that song. You can't insulate your kids from every situation and every kind of language. Instead, you can only teach them what is right and what is wrong, and then when they encounter those situations and that kind of language out in the real world (in the case of a 12 or 13 year old, the real world of school and the playground), they would be better prepared to conduct themselves in the proper manner that I had taught them. As my daughter got older, 16 to 18, there were worse songs with worse language, such as the "F-word" that she listened to (and so did I -- we have a similar taste in alternative-indie music), but I was still fine with her listening to that kind of music -- and even watching R-rated movies -- because I know that she will hear and see those things outside of my house, and the best I can do is teach her right and wrong and help set her moral compass, and then let her make her own decisions based on that moral compass.
Precisely so. A rating is just an arbitrary measure, and doesn't alleviate any responsibility of the parents to parent. I don't care what the rating is on something, I make no assumption that a rating indicates something is appropriate for my child. I watch it first. DSC will be no different.
You can guarantee she was hearing it at school. I was real strict when I sent my oldest to school the first time. But then I started seeing what was going on with other kids and my own experiences at school. I figured it was better to try and guide them through than hide what people consider inappropriate.
Maybe I am wrong but don't most children at some point watch more adult stuff anyways, no matter the rating. You just don't tell your parents about it. Remember when Quentin Tarantino got into some trouble for saying something like how "KIll BIll" was kind of for 12 year old boys or something like that. I think we underestimate just what kids are really into and how much access they have to it. It was even that way before the internet. I think family friendly ratings are less about protecting children than it is about making more prudish people feel happy. It's the adults who have a bigger impact or issue with this stuff than the children. Which is okay IMO. I don't mind that tv is diverse and you can have shows that cater to different audiences. With Trek I think it is capable of being R-rated but not sure if a R-rated show would be successful because I think it does have the rep for being more family friendly. At least that was how I think it became. Wasn't TOS more for young adults an hippies back when it was on? Was it considered edgy by 60's standards? I think Trek can pull off Pg-13 but I do think the audience will change but not sure if it will become more popular than it has become in the past. Basically your just switching families for millininals if you do that. Old school fans will be around in both scenario's IMO. Jason
Kill Bill was for genre aficionados. My first exposure to Trek was when I was 6 or so but at the time the real themes of the episode beyond the basic action were a bit over my head. You kind of need Formal Operational thinking to really get what the episodes are about. I agree there's going to be some vocal hardcore fans who scream about change for the sake of change but Isaac's attitude is that these are the majority and where he could have said "Some people will not like the changes, we hope you judge the show for what it is", instead he said "Can't wait to hear people whine about it! Who cares, you'll watch it anyway, F*** YOU!" That's just obnoxious and it makes me hate the actor. I promise you, Mr Isaacs, that if I hate Discovery it won't be because things changed, it will be because of the quality of the writing. I will reserve judgment until it airs. If the writing is good, I will continue watching, otherwise I will not "Just watch anyway."
^^^ Funny - I don't see a "Fuck You!" anywhere in the report of what he actually said: Gotta love the rampant Hyperbole.
"HE DAMMED ME TO TEH HELLZ AND WISHED TEH HORROR-IBLE AND LINGERING DEATHS UPON MY PEOPLES!!!!! WORST ACTER EVAR!!!1!1!"
"I look forward to having the fun of them being outraged". This seems to me like he is isolating a Trekkie Big Bang Theory stereotype to represent all Star Trek fans. "I know they're all going to watch anyway". Translation, Star Trek fans love to complain but they will watch whatever we put out regardless of quality. Yes, the '**** You" part is an embellishment, but it sounds like he's trying to pre-declare all pushback against the new series to "Trekkies whining about change for the sake of hating change and being whiny". Which probably accurately represents maybe 10% of the fan base, and assumes that all criticism of the show is just "Those nerds whining about change". Which is obnoxious. Yes, people did whine when Battlestar Galactica changed, then they got over it because it had good writing. Star Trek will be no different -- if the writing is good. You don't get to pre-cast all critics of the new show as Sheldon Cooper.
I have no data to cite, only anecdotes in the form of my impression FWIW, but I don't believe that's the case. oldBSG fans who liked nuBSG "because it had good writing" weren't really those who were whining at the ways in which BSG got re-imagined, such as Starbuck's gender-switch. Those who whined never really came around and are still whining. Furthermore, there are a lot of nuBSG fans, including people who appreciate its writing, who can't really be said to be fans of the original. If oldBSG fandom is indicative of how ST fans will react to DSC, then those who are whining now will be whining after we've seen some episodes. They'll also still be whining when the show is over. We need only look to how ST fans reacted to nuTrek (again, my impression). Sure, some people whining before STXI changed their minds, but the a priori-whiners tended to be also a posteriori-whiners. Of course, many nuTrek critics gave nuTrek a chance and were simply critical of what they saw, but they went in with an open mind. Whiners whine. What happened in the case of nuBSG was that many people were brought aboard who weren't really fans of the original but who liked what they saw. The nuBSG fans simply outnumbered the oldBSG fans who were whining, by a lot.
Problem is that it's nearly impossible to tell between people who might complain because they can't let go from old Trek to people who simply don't like it. His comments could, like mentioned above, be a means of basically lumping all criticism in one category. I think it's kind of like the new "Ghoustbusters" movie. You had people who hated it because of sexism but you also had people who hated it because it was bad and others who hated it because it wasn't just bad but it was, yet another remake that doesn't do justice to a classic movie. Yet some wanted to say all criticism was due to sexism. I think "The Nostiga Critic" critic did a good job of exposing the whole issue. I know this will be the case simply by how people have reacted to the canon/new universe theory. How many people have made the mistake of making it seem like everyone who might not think if the show is apart of canon is the same as being mad or thinking the show will be bad because they think that opinion? People get a idea on what they think is really behind all criticism and like the toss everyone's opinions into one big lump and don't respect that people are individuals and everyone i going to have their own unique perspective on the show. Jason
I watched "Borderland" and "Cold Station 12" from Enterprise last night. "Cold Station 12" is rather violent with Doctor Lucas getting the snot beat out of him and the other doctor being tossed in a chamber and killed with "Symbalene Blood Burn", complete with blood oozing out of his orifices. I think folks remembering Trek as "family fare" are badly misremembering what they've watched.