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

[RJDiogenes]

Being liberal does not mean wanting the media to be dumbed down and exploitative, devaluing actors and actresses as sex objects to be ogled by peurile teenagers. Women fought for years to be treated as equals with the right to make valid self informed choices, not to be reduced to a set of boobs for your enjoyment.

The ideology that beauty and sexuality are "dumb" and "devaluing" and only appropriate for "puerile teenagers" is the very essence of conservatism. Women (and liberals in general) have fought for centuries against the sexual oppression of patriarchal religion. I don't know where you get the idea that sexual and social freedoms are in conflict with valid, self-informed choices. That's just a non sequitur.

 

[zar]

 

[psCargile]

They probably meant more male nudity anyway.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Umm, this isn't about being conservative, I'm anything but.

Being liberal does not mean wanting the media to be dumbed down and exploitative, devaluing actors and actresses as sex objects to be ogled by peurile teenagers. Women fought for years to be treated as equals with the right to make valid self informed choices, not to be reduced to a set of boobs for your enjoyment.

It means many things to many people but if you think progress = seeing how far we can push sex on TV then you are sorely missing the point.

*stand and slow clap*

My feelings about nudity/swearing in Star Trek are the same as how I feel about the show being set between two established eras, whether TOS characters will show up, what the ship looks like, etc etc etc. As long as the stories are good and the characters are well-written and well-acted, I'm on board. If it serves the story in some meaningful or contextual or tonal way, go for it. It all comes down to the story.

There are times when nudity flows naturally in the story and makes sense in a show, and times where it's clearly gratuitous and there just to excite teenage boys. Same with swearing. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things.

EDIT: And just to clarify, I am in no way, shape, or form against nudity. I'm all for the "free the nipple" movement, expressing yourself as you wish, and normalizing human bodies. I'm just uncomfortable when a show exploits people (usually women) for their bodies rather than treating them with respect and dignity. There's a difference.

 

[Christopher]

Given the creative staff behind Discovery, I think any nudity or sexual content would be likely to feature males at least as heavily as females.

 

[Mudd]

Finally, some good news out of this shitty week.

 

[fireproof78]

*stand and slow clap*

My feelings about nudity/swearing in Star Trek are the same as how I feel about the show being set between two established eras, whether TOS characters will show up, what the ship looks like, etc etc etc. As long as the stories are good and the characters are well-written and well-acted, I'm on board. If it serves the story in some meaningful or contextual or tonal way, go for it. It all comes down to the story.

There are times when nudity flows naturally in the story and makes sense in a show, and times where it's clearly gratuitous and there just to excite teenage boys. Same with swearing. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things.

EDIT: And just to clarify, I am in no way, shape, or form against nudity. I'm all for the "free the nipple" movement, expressing yourself as you wish, and normalizing human bodies. I'm just uncomfortable when a show exploits people (usually women) for their bodies rather than treating them with respect and dignity. There's a difference.

This largely reflects my opinion as well. I think open nudity should be part of life, for the most part, and have no problem of it within the context of the story. I think it can be done well, but I also fear that it will be an excuse for more sensationalism and to generate interest, not actually add to the story.

Can it be done well? Absolutely. But, I'm not sure it will be.

 

[psCargile]

What about Muslim viewers?

 

[Spot261]

Christopher: I think you and I have an awful lot of common ground, where we differ is in the conclusions we draw about the way forward. You see past failures as a mandate to try again, whereas I see them as an indication that trek doesn't need to.

It has spent fifty years defining liberal attitudes for the media, challenging the prevailing political winds and becoming one of the most successful and iconic TV shows of all time by using its setting, story telling and characterisation. Where it has dipped its toes into sex and nuidty the methods and results have almost always been a dismal failure, often at the expense of exploiting its performers

Yes it could arguably be tried again with some success, but why? It already defines the epitome of mainstream liberalism and is an unmitigated success.

As a political vehicle the new show is openly challenging attitudes to LGBT people, featuring a gay female main character. Those attitudes will be challenged far better by presenting a strong, enabled character who challenges stereotypes, exactly what the gay community needs from its media representatives. What they don't need is the perception that character is there for straight male gratification "its the show with spaceships and lezzas".

We have thousands of TV shows selling themselves on the basis of sex, what we don't have is strong and proportionate representation of gay people

The ideology that beauty and sexuality are "dumb" and "devaluing" and only appropriate for "puerile teenagers" is the very essence of conservatism. Women (and liberals in general) have fought for centuries against the sexual oppression of patriarchal religion. I don't know where you get the idea that sexual and social freedoms are in conflict with valid, self-informed choices. That's just a non sequitur.

Linda Parks breast shot was a sexual freedom? No, it was exploitation and, yes, dumb.

Alice Eve was a sexual freedom? Again, no.

The decon scene was a sexual freedom? Yet again no.

These are not instances of self expression, they are examples of exploiting people to make a quick buck and flag up waning viewing firgures. Sexual freedoms are about a personal choice, they are by definition freedoms. Being expected to do something you might NOT choose because you work in an industry which expects it is NOT a sexual freedom. It's exploitation and sadly trek has many times been guilty of this.

If you believe that to be conservatism I don't know how to help you.

Being a liberal is about respecting peopl, their choices and their values because they are inherently worthy of that respect, because they have value and worth for no reason other being a member of the human race. It's about moving beyond prejudice and treating your fellow humans with compassion as a matter of course.

Women fought for the right to choose, not the right to be used.

 

[Christopher]

Yes it could arguably be tried again with some success, but why? It already defines the epitome of mainstream liberalism and is an unmitigated success.

See, you're missing the point by treating sexual content as an end in itself. Rather, it's a tool in the kit, a means to the end of telling stories. Censorship can restrict storytellers by preventing them from doing certain things that might be necessary to tell a given story. For instance, if NBC's censors had been stricter in the '60s, TOS might not have been able to do "Amok Time" because it dealt with alien mating drives, or "The Mark of Gideon" because it mentioned contraception.

So the opportunity to work in a medium less bound by censorship opens up new story possibilities. That's not just about sex or nudity. Those are just part of the increased potential, superficial examples or symbols of that greater freedom rather than the whole purpose of it. There are plenty of things you can do with that greater freedom from censorship. For example, yes, Luke Cage has a much more overt sex scene than it could've had on a network, but a network show probably couldn't have confronted racial issues as openly either. A network version of Jessica Jones probably couldn't have shown the psychological horrors Killgrave inflicted in as frank and disturbing a way, not in terms of visuals but in terms of the intensity of their emotional impact.

So you're taking one guy's answer to one reporter's question too literally. They never said they would pile on the sex and nudity and swearing. They said that they could, if it served the story. And it's that possibility, that freedom of choice, that's the real point. They could choose to do that if they wanted, or they could choose to do something else that's more intense or boundary-pushing than the sponsors of a commercial-network show would be comfortable with.

As a political vehicle the new show is openly challenging attitudes to LGBT people, featuring a gay female main character. Those attitudes will be challenged far better by presenting a strong, enabled character who challenges stereotypes, exactly what the gay community needs from its media representatives. What they don't need is the perception that character is there for straight male gratification "its the show with spaceships and lezzas".

Come on. The show was created by a gay man. He's stepped back as showrunner, but half of its new showrunner duo is female. You have no legitimate basis for assuming there's a straight male agenda here. You're just fearing the worst without evidence, and that's no way to face life.

And yes, I have already repeatedly agreed that Enterprise's treatment of sexuality was puerile and lame. You don't need to relitigate that because nobody is disputing that. But that was Berman and Braga. This is Bryan Fuller, Gretchen Berg, and Aaron Harberts. It's apples and oranges. You might as well be expecting Russell T. Davies's Doctor Who to be the same as John Nathan-Turner's. These are completely new people. If you're so proud of liberalism, then you should understand the concept of giving people the benefit of the doubt. Give them a chance to prove themselves before you damn them for other people's actions.

 

[Mudd]

CBS's thinking is not complicated.

They're spending Game Of Thrones money on this show.

They expect to see Game Of Thrones random tits on the screen.

 

[mos6507]

Censorship can restrict storytellers by preventing them from doing certain things that might be necessary to tell a given story.

Keyword = might be necessary. TOS did just fine under standards and practices of 50 years ago. It was no great loss that Kirk's love-scenes faded to black or Angelique Pettyjohn didn't flash her boobs in Gamesters of Triskelion.

Give them a chance to prove themselves before you damn them for other people's actions.

This thread wouldn't have any posts in it if we all just sat around waiting for it to debut before offering our opinions. We're latching onto every little tidbit and trying to extrapolate what it means. It's natural.

 

[soapp]

I really don't see the point. I prefer my Trek to be family friendly. The show can be more intelligent, I always feel have tits on screen is a way to let the writers to get lazy.
Or maybe it's the other way around.

As much as Gene was the ladies man, doesn't mean we can't keep it classy and keep trek what it has become, rather then. Game of Thrones.
- But I know... trek is changing, and it won't stop.

 

[Christopher]

Keyword = might be necessary. TOS did just fine under standards and practices of 50 years ago. It was no great loss that Kirk's love-scenes faded to black or Angelique Pettyjohn didn't flash her boobs in Gamesters of Triskelion.

Not the point. Again, this is not exclusively about sex or skin. That's just what the interviewer chose to ask about, and it's invalid to blame an interview subject for the focus or preoccupations of the person asking the questions. What this is about is having greater creative freedom to do what a given story may need. It's not about specifically planning to do a single thing; it's about whether or not you'll be allowed to take a story wherever it needs to go. Writers have been fighting censorship throughout the ages, not just of cuss words or boobs, but of ideas. Censorship of skin and language is usually just a subset of a deeper, more insidious kind of censorship. Like how commercial TV sponsors in the '60s were uneasy with shows that tackled controversial subjects like war or racism. That's why both Roddenberry and Rod Serling went into science fiction -- because the only way to sneak challenging social commentary past the censors was to disguise it as some far-off fantasy.

So you really shouldn't be so complacent about censorship. It's an obstacle to creative freedom. A show that wants to have something meaningful to say is more likely to be able to say it in a forum where there's less censorship.

This thread wouldn't have any posts in it if we all just sat around waiting for it to debut before offering our opinions. We're latching onto every little tidbit and trying to extrapolate what it means. It's natural.

There's a difference between an opinion and an assumption, especially when that assumption is a rather insulting accusation about the intentions of people who haven't even been given a chance to prove themselves yet.

 

[Long Syntax]

I wonder if humanity will have come with with new expletives, like grok - I mean it's four letters, surely there is room for more colorful metaphors in this universe

 

[BillJ]

Oh my GOD!!! TEH BOOBIES!!!

They stir yearnings in my loins! Yearnings that I can't control!

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

 

[m.lp.ql.m]

I've never subscribed to the "family friendly" argument for censorship.

Children need to be aware of the world they grow up in. Yes, entertainment is part of 'the world.' Yes, sex, violence and advertising is part of 'the world.'

As a parent, it's your responsibility to monitor what your children watch, and TALK WITH them about it. How else will they learn to make their own responsible decisions if they're never exposed to the difficult questions?

If discussing the birds and the bees with your children makes you uncomfortable, then maybe you shouldn't be watching that stuff either.

 

[{ Emilia }]

In the end it totally depends on how it's used.

When it's gratuitous fan service it's silly. But in general I welcome more sensuality in Star Trek or just media in general. Kinda tired of the whole American "violence is okay but sex is evil"-nonsense.
Sex is a normal part of our lives, no reason to desperately try and hide it.

 

[Lance]

As a political vehicle the new show is openly challenging attitudes to LGBT people, featuring a gay female main character. Those attitudes will be challenged far better by presenting a strong, enabled character who challenges stereotypes, exactly what the gay community needs from its media representatives. What they don't need is the perception that character is there for straight male gratification "its the show with spaceships and lezzas".

We have thousands of TV shows selling themselves on the basis of sex, what we don't have is strong and proportionate representation of gay people

Interesting discussion, and it reminds me of somethung.

There was a soap opera on British telly in the early 2000s that featured a gay male character. The actor didn't present him 'stereotypically', and the writers and producers used him in storylines in exactly the same way they did all the other characters. The character's sexuality was not a spectacle, but simply treated in a matter-of-fact manner, as being a part of who he is, not what he is. The other characters in the show didn't treat him any differently. It was refreshing, honest and real. Unfortunately, another producer came in a few years later, and this same character was suddenly written as campy, effeminate, and gratuitous sex scenes started to appear. The actor expressed reservations about this publicly, as although he was straight, he'd recieved a lot of positive feedback from the LGBT community about how the character had been portrayed up to that point, and he predicted the backlash that did eventually come from the change of direction.

I guess my point is that the number of shows that use these characters as titilation needs to stop. Even today, some 15 years later, we're less likely to see positive role models of that community presented on TV, as we are to see those characters used for blatant titilation, or as "humourous" stereotypes. It kind of degrades the process. What Trek needs is the inclusivity to feature a gay character, or even better a gay couple, and have their relationship be treated as nothing out of the ordinary by both the writing team *and* the other characters on the show. Imagine how good that would be.

EDIT: Which, indeed, is exactly how Sulu's relationship was presented in Star Trek Beyond. He's in a same sex relationship *and* has a daughter, and none of the other characters bats an eyelid. More of that please.

 

[fireproof78]

Which, indeed, is exactly how Sulu's relationship was presented in Star Trek Beyond. He's in a same sex relationship *and* has a daughter, and none of the other characters bats an eyelid. More of that please.

Yep. If it doesn't dominate the entire story or is gratuitous then I think it can be well done.

Otherwise, no, just don't.

As a curiosity on my part, are there examples of scenes that people can show that would be something Discovery should employ or, conversely, avoid? I think it would go a long way in helping people understand what is expected or what isn't wanted.