Next year’s ‘Star Trek’ reboot may have naked aliens and swearing, CBS digital chief says

[stardream]

Being a parent, and living in the US, I've never understood our open acceptance of violence but squeamishness of sex and nudity either.

To be honest, it's never bothered me one way or another. If something 'showed' up while my kids were watching we didn't make a big deal out of it. We never censored anything we watched or read with the exception of horror movies.

I might be alone but I don't think the human body is particularly beautiful. I don't think it's ugly...but...it's nothing I 'need' to see.

 

[BillJ]

I might be alone but I don't think the human body is particularly beautiful. I don't think it's ugly...but...it's nothing I 'need' to see.

I agree with Elaine Benes on this one...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Christopher]

(On a side note I will never understand why many people in the USA seem to be fine with letting their little kids see series and movies with violent deaths, blood, murder and other gruesome things in it, but have a problem with a little nude skin and swearing. Wrong priorities in my opinion!)

Hear, hear. It's disturbing to me that Americans consider acts of affection more obscene than acts of destruction. (And I've lived in the US all my life.)

 

[fireproof78]

Hear, hear. It's disturbing to me that Americans consider acts of affection more obscene than acts of destruction. (And I've lived in the US all my life.)

Perhaps because, in antiquity, acts of affection were considered private and violence was often a part of daily life?

Some attitudes develop from sources that are not always remembered. I personally think that both violence and nudity need to be determined by the individual viewer's preferences, not mandated one way or the other. This is why I don't watch things like GoT. I don't want censorship, but I don't feel the need to watch it either. I'm glad its out there, though I see the trend of studios tried to find the next GoT type success, much in the way they are trying to find the next Marvel franchise. So, I am skeptical that they'll be using it for story building and more for ratings grab.

 

[BillJ]

So, I am skeptical that they'll be using it for story building and more for ratings grab.

Ratings grab is how you stay on the air and tell the stories you want to tell. Gene Roddenberry of the 1960's seemed to understand this concept.

 

[fireproof78]

Ratings grab is how you stay on the air and tell the stories you want to tell. Gene Roddenberry of the 1960's seemed to understand this concept.

That's a good point. Just makes me leery of what the show will actually be. Still skeptical at this point.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Hear, hear. It's disturbing to me that Americans consider acts of affection more obscene than acts of destruction.

Well, if there are enough Klingons in DSC, we can see both at the same time!

 

[Christopher]

Some attitudes develop from sources that are not always remembered. I personally think that both violence and nudity need to be determined by the individual viewer's preferences, not mandated one way or the other.

I don't think anybody said anything about mandates. Mandating content is exactly what I, as a writer, am vehemently opposed to. The idea that anyone's standards should be enforced on all creators is terrifying to me. Nothing should be required to be included any more than it should be forbidden. What I'm advocating is creators' freedom to include whatever they deem appropriate, which is just as important as individual audience members' freedom to choose what stories they do or don't want to partake in.

This is why I don't watch things like GoT. I don't want censorship, but I don't feel the need to watch it either.

See, this is the problem I personally face as a viewer. I dislike seeing graphic violence, but I have no objection to nudity, especially the female kind. As a rule, I'd rather see more nudity and less violence, but unfortunate our society insists on lumping the two together, so the things that have more nudity tend to have more graphic violence as well.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think anybody said anything about mandates. Mandating content is exactly what I, as a writer, am vehemently opposed to. The idea that anyone's standards should be enforced on all creators is terrifying to me. Nothing should be required to be included any more than it should be forbidden. What I'm advocating is creators' freedom to include whatever they deem appropriate, which is just as important as individual audience members' freedom to choose what stories they do or don't want to partake in.

I think we are heading that way. I just think that there is an attitude of "We can do this so we have too."

That's what I meant by a mandate. Take it as a GoT mandate, as it were.

See, this is the problem I personally face as a viewer. I dislike seeing graphic violence, but I have no objection to nudity, especially the female kind. As a rule, I'd rather see more nudity and less violence, but unfortunate our society insists on lumping the two together, so the things that have more nudity tend to have more graphic violence as well.

I tend to agree with you for the most part.

 

[Christopher]

I think we are heading that way. I just think that there is an attitude of "We can do this so we have too."

That's what I meant by a mandate. Take it as a GoT mandate, as it were.

Well, that's different. That's just supply and demand -- if a large number of people like something (i.e. if it gets a show good ratings), then it stands to reason that businesspeople would want to cater to that preference. That can be somewhat mercenary, and frustrating to those who don't go along with the crowd, but it's not a matter of coercion or censorship, and it diminishes the real danger of coercion or censorship if you talk about mere market pressure as if it were the same thing.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The idea that anyone's standards should be enforced on all creators is terrifying to me.

Even if it's your standards?

 

[fireproof78]

Well, that's different. That's just supply and demand -- if a large number of people like something (i.e. if it gets a show good ratings), then it stands to reason that businesspeople would want to cater to that preference. That can be somewhat mercenary, and frustrating to those who don't go along with the crowd, but it's not a matter of coercion or censorship, and it diminishes the real danger of coercion or censorship if you talk about mere market pressure as if it were the same thing.

I don't think it's bending to market pressures. I think its studios trying to mimic success at all costs with no thought to the ramifications to the stories being told.

I'm not saying "censorship" but I do feel like its a bit coercive at times. But, Hollywood never made much sense to me anyway.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think it's bending to market pressures. I think its studios trying to mimic success at all costs with no thought to the ramifications to the stories being told.

Same thing. I'm not saying it's good, but it's not being forced on you -- and neither you nor I has the right to say that it should be forbidden. It's not just wrong for other people to insist you should conform to their tastes, it's wrong for you or me to insist that others should conform to ours. We all have to respect each other's rights and not be so arrogant as to confuse our personal preferences with objective value.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

We all have to respect each other's rights and not be so arrogant as to confuse our personal preferences with objective value.

Yes, we do, don't we?

 

[The Overlord]

I wouldn't mind more violence, if it serves a story purpose.

I do think it would be great if actions have consequences and we don't hit the reset button every time.

I would say most of the darker content should come from the villains.

If one thing bothers me about many one shot Star Trek villains, its that many of them have no personality beyond being a jerk, they have no redeeming qualities, but there is nothing scary or menacing about them.

If you want to show something is bad, then a have a villain who is willing to do really bad things, Social Commentary can be toothless if it doesn't show the consequences for certain actions.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I would say most of the darker content should come from the villains.

Agreed.

 

[fireproof78]

Same thing. I'm not saying it's good, but it's not being forced on you -- and neither you nor I has the right to say that it should be forbidden. It's not just wrong for other people to insist you should conform to their tastes, it's wrong for you or me to insist that others should conform to ours. We all have to respect each other's rights and not be so arrogant as to confuse our personal preferences with objective value.

Forbidden? I don't believe I have stated that. My only comment is that I don't think CBS will do it well.

 

[Christopher]

Forbidden? I don't believe I have stated that. My only comment is that I don't think CBS will do it well.

Why does everyone keep attributing the creation of this show to abstract constructs like Star Trek as a whole or CBS as a whole? The show is the work of individuals. Bryan Fuller, Alex Kurtzman, Gretchen Berg, Aaron Harberts, Vincenzo Natali, Nicholas Meyer, Joe Menosky, Kirsten Beyer, etc. Let's stop talking about this show as if it's the work of some anonymous cabal. It's being made by people whose previous work in TV and film is a matter of public knowledge, people whose individual merits and approaches we can assess based on their past bodies of work. What I'm hearing here is people fearing the worst because they don't know what to expect, and the best way to dispel fear of the unknown is by focusing on what we do know.

 

[fireproof78]

Why does everyone keep attributing the creation of this show to abstract constructs like Star Trek as a whole or CBS as a whole? The show is the work of individuals. Bryan Fuller, Alex Kurtzman, Gretchen Berg, Aaron Harberts, Vincenzo Natali, Nicholas Meyer, Joe Menosky, Kirsten Beyer, etc. Let's stop talking about this show as if it's the work of some anonymous cabal. It's being made by people whose previous work in TV and film is a matter of public knowledge, people whose individual merits and approaches we can assess based on their past bodies of work. What I'm hearing here is people fearing the worst because they don't know what to expect, and the best way to dispel fear of the unknown is by focusing on what we do know.

Ok.

I've got no response to that, other than, I'm skeptical. All the "prior work" is not going to allay that skepticism. CBS still will be giving marching orders, to some degree or another, and their expectations for the show.

No, it's not some anonymous cabal. There is just some information that we don't know and that makes me skeptical. I don't think anyone is forbidding or censoring anything. I think that the staff are an accomplished group of individuals who have been hired to do a specific task. I don't have the parameters for what CBS is wanting out of this show.

It's not so black and white as it first appears, and that makes me skeptical.

 

[The Overlord]

Agreed.

Yeah, a Federation Starship should be a professional work place, it is not King's Landing or the Court of Kublai Khan. Federation officers should not swear like sailors and there should not be mass sex rituals on board.

Now if you want have a corrupt Klingon offical with some decadent imperial court, like you would see on Marco Palo or Game of Thrones, that would be fine.