But they can stroll the decks shirtless.
Next year’s ‘Star Trek’ reboot may have naked aliens and swearing, CBS digital chief says
- Thread starter dbcooper
- Start date
^^ Or get their shirts ripped off in a fight, like a certain someone used to. 
The right to other people's bodies! My goodness! Next thing you know, I'll have the right to listen to their poetry.
Unfortunately, the knee-jerk attitudes toward sexuality are more than just on the fringes.
Why do you keep saying "rather than?"
It has definitely occurred to me, especially when I see them say it. I hold a different position on the subject.
I completely disagree.
Again, I completely disagree.
It's an opinion that the show should be censored.
Like what?
Equating an appreciation of beauty and sexuality with adolescence is just another of those standard dodges, like "demeaning" and "gratuitous." Sexuality is something you grow into, not out of.
You seem to be again implying that sexuality is somehow a violation of women's rights. That's still a non sequitur.
That's what Dr Wertham said.
We're talking about the arts. The arts are not superficial. The Arts & Sciences are what define humanity.
Thinking of beauty and sexuality in the arts in the same terms as the sex trade in Thailand is a bit on the negative side. An actor can take a job that involves nudity or sex if they like it, or they can not apply for the job if they don't like it. Or they can not like it and do it anyway, like the rest of us do the parts of our job that we don't like. That's up to them.
The planet Earth.
Yes, it is. As I've explained already, an actor's acting, a writer's writing, an artist's art, a singer's singing, an athlete's athletics, a dancer's dancing-- these things, and countless others, are there to be given and taken. Beauty does not come with a different set of rules. That idea is pure religion.
You're sure you're not conservative?
The right to other people's bodies! My goodness! Next thing you know, I'll have the right to listen to their poetry.
Of course most creators have to work within limits, but that doesn't mean all their shows will be the same. Person of Interest was subject to constant pressure from CBS to focus more on the case-of-the-week crime-procedural stuff and less on the grand science-fiction arc about the surveillance state and the strong-AI Singularity, but the producers were still able to make it a much more innovative, richer show than the routine stuff CBS wanted. If anything, that tension helped make it a better show, since keeping the weekly procedural aspects helped keep focus on the show's fundamental theme that individual lives and rights should not be sacrificed for an abstract greater good.
You misunderstand. My comments about censorship are not about the network, they're about the attitudes I'm hearing from some people in this thread, the implication that no storytellers should ever include nudity or sexual content or whatever regardless of whether the story needs it. I find that kind of blanket rejection disturbing for the same reason I find censorship disturbing. Creators have the right to tell any kind of story they feel is appropriate. It needs to be driven by the requirements and organic growth of the story, not by some arbitrary external restriction on a given ingredient. Free speech means respecting people's right to express ideas you hate, not just ideas you like. I personally don't care for the excessive violence in a lot of TV today, I wouldn't include it in my own work, but I will always be an unflinching defender of other people's right to include it in theirs.
It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts, as Sherlock Holmes liked to say. The proper response in the absence of data is to keep an open mind and await more data, not to dwell on hypotheticals. There's also the fact that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental part of basic justice. If you expect the best about someone and they turn out bad, then they're the ones at fault. But if you expect the worst of them and they're actually okay, then you're the one at fault, the one being unjust to them. So giving people the benefit of the doubt is simply the decent thing to do.
It's a natural enough impulse to imagine bad situations and try to armor yourself against them. It's how our primate ancestors dealt with danger in the wild. But we're not in the wild. There's nothing that you or I can do to change anything about Star Trek: Discovery, so getting into a defensive or worried state of mind about it cannot achieve anything useful. The only impact it has is a negative one on your own peace of mind. And that seems pointless to me. Better just to relax and wait and see what actually happens.
Well, in a manner of speaking, they are sailors...
If anything, I expect the show to be rather conservative compared to things like Game of Thrones. This is CBS, and Star Trek is a cash cow, they aren't going to rock the boat in any major way.
I am optimistic that Fuller and Kurtzman can innovate as well as that if not more so.
I might disagree but I would fight to the death for someone to express themselves freely. I find censorship disturbing as well, and quite frustrating in my study of history.
That said, as a general rule, I would not include nudity or such in my own work, unless I deemed it necessary. If the creators of the show deem it necessary, I'll watch it and judge it then.
I expect the best from Discovery. I might be skeptical, but I'll be paying for All Access the moment I know when Discovery is to be released. Period.
I am skpetical of the inclusion of nudity, as a general rule. That might be a mistake, and with due respect to Mr. Holmes, but it is my mistake to make.
I'm not worried is my overall point. Not in the slightest, and if my tone comes across that way, allow me to put it this way-I am skeptical. I expect the best, think that it will be great, think that Fuller and Kurtzman are the right men for the job. If I come across defensive it is because I feel that genuine concerns are being downplayed with no interest in counterarguments. I'm speaking broadly, not at you specifically.
I honestly could care less about the Discovery at this point, but I love a good debate. So, I presented some anecdotes about my own perspective, as well as a skepticism about how it might go in a variety of different ways. None of these opinions are set in stone, nor do I lay awake at night worried over discovery having a full frontal scene. Of the things I have to "worry" about that isn't even in the top 100.
But, it's a fun,spirited, debate, which I find far more enjoyable.
There are a variety of possibilities that they can take.
CBS tends to be the most conservative of the "Big Four" networks anyway. Were this to be an ABC of FOX production, there would be no question that graphic violence or explicit sexual acts would be a regular part of the show.
I would be absolutely shocked if the adult content was anywhere near Game of Thrones orWestworld.
Ummm... huh? All broadcast commercial networks have pretty much the same restrictions on sex, nudity, violence, and profanity; they all have a lot of the same sponsors and are targeted at the same general audience, and they're all subject to the same FCC content regulations. And to date, neither ABC nor FOX has a paid streaming service that would be free of such restrictions. And ABC is owned by Disney, which isn't exactly known for embracing hardcore adult content.
I for one am not a big fan of "sexposition"
I've watched Game of Thrones, Spartacus and True Blood, so I'm really not bothered by adult content, but at the same time I do think GOT and Spartacus especially went a bit overboard. I can't really see Discovery going that far, and as long as what we get is appropriate to the story and not just there to be there I'm not to bothered by it.
Aren't the sailors usually cited in comparison to a person's swearing habits usually comparable to Federation officers? Aren't Federation officers basically the sailors of the 23rd century? If so, then I would think they'd basically swear no more or less than themselves.
Its just an old expression and I do expect Star Fleet officers to be professional while on duty, the comm officer shouldn't be using swear words every other word.
It's an expression because there's truth in it.
On duty, maybe protocol would have restrictions on language. But people curse in real life, especially among adults, so on their own time they very well may curse. It's a harmless way to blow off steam.
And I say this as someone who usually refrains from cursing.
Let's go all out. For that they will need an all Brit cast though.
"Earth vessel, identify yourself."
"Are you retarded? This is the goddamn Discovery!"
"Are you retarded? This is the goddamn Discovery!"
Nudity is less of an issue than gore in my book, so I have no problems with it in Star Trek. Swearing is ok to punctuate certain emotional states, but if overused desensitizes people. I would use both sparingly but i could see them as more common than previous shows, just as it was more common in Enterprise.
RAMA
RAMA
Similar threads
