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

[Christopher]

Writing off criticism of sexism in media as a religious conservatism reaction is frankly ridiculous and misses the point completely.

The problem, for me, is with the reflexive assumption that any media portrayal of nudity or sex has to be sexist. That's not true. That's just when it's done wrong, not when it's done right. We don't know yet which will be the case with Discovery. But as I've said, given what we know about the people who are making the show, and given the precedent of their own previous works, I don't think it makes sense to expect them to approach sexuality from the perspective of the heterosexual male gaze.

 

[fireproof78]

The problem, for me, is with the reflexive assumption that any media portrayal of nudity or sex has to be sexist. That's not true. That's just when it's done wrong, not when it's done right. We don't know yet which will be the case with Discovery. But as I've said, given what we know about the people who are making the show, and given the precedent of their own previous works, I don't think it makes sense to expect them to approach sexuality from the perspective of the heterosexual male gaze.

I'm just not sure it will be done right.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

The problem, for me, is with the reflexive assumption that any media portrayal of nudity or sex has to be sexist. That's not true. That's just when it's done wrong, not when it's done right. We don't know yet which will be the case with Discovery. But as I've said, given what we know about the people who are making the show, and given the precedent of their own previous works, I don't think it makes sense to expect them to approach sexuality from the perspective of the heterosexual male gaze.

I'm not trying to say that all sexuality or nudity in media is inherently sexist. That's honestly not my view at all. It depends on presentation and context. The example I gave from STID, I think, fails that test and is sexist. But there's plenty of shows and films that have nudity and sexuality and aren't sexist at all. My problem is with the sexist portrayals.

 

[Spot261]

That's an absurd question. Imagine if people had said:

"Given Trek's success without a space station setting, why tamper?"
"Given Trek's success without a black or female lead character, why tamper?"
"Given Trek's success without digital effects, why tamper?"

It's not "tampering" to try new things -- it's growing. It's exploring. Star Trek is bloody well about seeking out the new and different and seeing what it's like, and I have zero patience for the kind of kneejerk fear of the new that you're advocating here. It's unfair to judge something you haven't even seen yet. If you actually see the show and then feel its content was handled pruriently, then you'll have good reason to complain. At this point it's just being gratuitously negative, making up straw-man worst case scenarios out of thin air just so you can denounce them and feel self-righteous. It's a complete waste of time and energy.

Since when is sex on screen new and different? It's old and hackneyed.

What are we exploring that hasn't been explored to the point of saturation? We all may well appreciate the human body but that isn't an intellectual or cerebral process, its just a basic human instinct shared by, well, everyone.

Conservatives watch porn too I've no doubt.

We're hardly pushing forward new frontiers here and having naked bodies on screen is hardly challenging any taboos in society. It's just an easy way of making extra money from the show.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not trying to say that all sexuality or nudity in media is inherently sexist. That's honestly not my view at all. It depends on presentation and context. The example I gave from STID, I think, fails that test and is sexist.

Which is actually rather surprising from an Abrams film, since his TV shows have almost all been female-led and pretty empowering. Certainly Sydney on Alias was sexualized a lot, but it was a tool she was using as a spy in order to gain advantage. And the Mission: Impossible films Abrams has produced or directed have been far better in their treatment of their female cast members than the first two, pre-Abrams M:I films were. So it's kind of odd and incongruous that Abrams went for "Kirk gawks at female co-star in underwear" moments in both the Trek films he directed. That isn't like him.

But anyway, as I've said, what matters is who's doing it. Regardless of its title, this is a show created by Bryan Fuller and Alex Kurtzman and show-run by Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts. Their past record, not Star Trek's, is what matters here. Granted, Kurtzman co-wrote STID, but his involvement in Discovery will probably be minimal, since it's one of maybe a half-dozen TV shows he's simultaneously executive-producing this season, and his main attention right now is devoted to directing the reboot of The Mummy and "show-running" the Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe that it's kicking off. So Fuller, Berg, and Harberts are probably the main creative voices that will shape the show -- less so Fuller now that he's stepped back to focus on American Gods and Amazing Stories, but he's presumably shaped the course of the season's plots and he'll still be in a supervisory role.

I'm just not sure it will be done right.

Optimism, Captain!

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Which is actually rather surprising from an Abrams film, since his TV shows have almost all been female-led and pretty empowering. Certainly Sydney on Alias was sexualized a lot, but it was a tool she was using as a spy in order to gain advantage. And the Mission: Impossible films Abrams has produced or directed have been far better in their treatment of their female cast members than the first two, pre-Abrams M:I films were. So it's kind of odd and incongruous that Abrams went for "Kirk gawks at female co-star in underwear" moments in both the Trek films he directed. That isn't like him.

But anyway, as I've said, what matters is who's doing it. Regardless of its title, this is a show created by Bryan Fuller and Alex Kurtzman and show-run by Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts. Their past record, not Star Trek's, is what matters here. Granted, Kurtzman co-wrote STID, but his involvement in Discovery will probably be minimal, since it's one of maybe a half-dozen TV shows he's simultaneously executive-producing this season, and his main attention right now is devoted to directing the reboot of The Mummy and "show-running" the Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe that it's kicking off. So Fuller, Berg, and Harberts are probably the main creative voices that will shape the show -- less so Fuller now that he's stepped back to focus on American Gods and Amazing Stories, but he's presumably shaped the course of the season's plots and he'll still be in a supervisory role.




Optimism, Captain!

Yeah don't get me wrong, I have a ton of confidence in this creative team, and if they want to include more mature sexual themes, I am totally open to that. It's all about execution.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

And the Mission: Impossible films Abrams has produced or directed have been far better in their treatment of their female cast members than the first two, pre-Abrams M:I films were. So it's kind of odd and incongruous that Abrams went for "Kirk gawks at female co-star in underwear" moments in both the Trek films he directed. That isn't like him.

???
That's actually the exact opposite. The Mission: Impossible films Abrams has produced or directed have sexualized their female cast members a lot more than the first two, pre-Abrams M:I films. Paula Patton, Rebecca Ferguson and Maggie Q were "sexualized" a lot more than Emmanuelle Béart and Thandie Newton. Brian de Palma's and John Woo's films don't have nearly the many gratuitous bikini, legs or cleavage shots that M:I 3, 4, 5 have.

 

[Christopher]

???
That's actually the exact opposite. The Mission: Impossible films Abrams has produced or directed have sexualized their female cast members a lot more than the first two, pre-Abrams M:I films. Paula Patton, Rebecca Ferguson and Maggie Q were "sexualized" a lot more than Emmanuelle Béart and Thandie Newton. Brian de Palma's and John Woo's films don't have nearly the many gratuitous bikini, legs or cleavage shots that M:I 3, 4, 5 have.

I'm not talking about skin, I'm talking about characterization and agency. Newton's character in particular was nothing more than an object for the male leads to battle over, and she was the only named or speaking female character in a film that failed every level of the Bechdel test. Beart's character was not nearly as bad, but was still basically just a romantic object and a cliched femme fatale, and ultimately a victim. Michelle Monaghan's character in M:I:III was a fully realized human being that Ethan Hunt had an actual relationship with, rather than just falling into bed with after flirting through insanely reckless driving. Not to mention that the ending of M:I:III brilliantly inverted the "damsel in distress" cliche by having Monaghan's character single-handedly defeat the bad guy and save the hero. And the female agents in the latter three films are not there just to be Tom Cruise's love interests; Patton's and Ferguson's characters in particular have their own agency and independent arcs that are not merely there to support the male lead. (And what's amusing about Patton's character is how utterly bad she is at trying to play the standard seductress role of a female IMF team member. She's more a brute-force kind of agent and doesn't take well to the team's more devious methods.)

It is an absolute mistake to equate the worth of a female character with how much skin she shows. That is sexist in itself, because it ignores everything about a woman except her body. If a female character has agency and depth and dimension and an independent story arc, then it doesn't matter if she spends the whole film naked -- she's still better-written than a fully clothed female who exists merely as a prize or McGuffin for the male characters.

 

[{ Emilia }]

The problem, for me, is with the reflexive assumption that any media portrayal of nudity or sex has to be sexist. That's not true. That's just when it's done wrong, not when it's done right.

This.
I find the use of nudity in Game of Thrones cringeworthy. Some of it could be justified to show the nature of that rather... unrestricted and wild world. But they overdid it to the point of it becoming gratuitous.

But take a show like Shameless. There's nudity in it and to me it just adds to the realism of a show that's trying to portray all aspects of the life of a family. I never felt that Emmy Rossum was sexually objectified. Like I said I really think there's nothing wrong with movies or TV portraying sex as something that's perfectly normal.

And don't give me this typical Hollywood shit: Weird bed sheets that somehow cover the man up to his waist but the woman up to her neck.
And only in movies do women get out of bed and actually carry the bed sheet around the room with them, even when nobody else is around. What a ridiculous idea. If Hollywood is so scared of nudity, they should just not imply that people sleep naked all the time. Give em underwear and the issue is fixed. Or let them be nude, I don't care.
Oh, but if they're wearing underwear Hollywood thinks we don't understand that they've had sex the night before!!!!


Sorry, I'm ranting but it just annoys me.

Sort of related: Star Trek has always utterly failed at showing relationships. Look at all these singles on board the various ships; it's insane, isn't it? All we got was awkwardness, one night stands and some rare exceptions that weren't written particularly well. I wonder if Discovery will manage to at least show us one realistic relationship, and showing intimacy (maybe including nudity) could actually help portray that.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Sort of related: Star Trek has always utterly failed at showing relationships. Look at all these singles on board the various ships; it's insane, isn't it? All we got was awkwardness, one night stands and some rare exceptions that weren't written particularly well. I wonder if Discovery will manage to at least show us one realistic relationship, and showing intimacy (maybe including nudity) could actually help portray that.

True. The whole Geordi "Nice Guys Finish Last" LaForge thing was eye-rolly and embarrassing. I hope DSC does a better job with relationships.

 

[Apparition B5]

I sincerely hope not. Any nudity or gore, and I'd be done with the show. I have no interest in the former, and the latter is revolting. No need for either.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I sincerely hope not. Any nudity or gore, and I'd be done with the show. I have no interest in the former, and the latter is revolting. No need for either.

Well it wouldn't be the first time we've seen gore in Trek. Remember "Conspiracy?" That could have been directed by John Carpenter. I mean, that kind of thing is uncommon in Trek, but not unheard of. Even the assassination scene in TUC is very gruesome and I remember being a little upset about it when I saw the movie as a kid.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I'm not talking about skin

Umm, yes you were. Remember:

So it's kind of odd and incongruous that Abrams went for "Kirk gawks at female co-star in underwear" moments in both the Trek films he directed. That isn't like him.

Actually, it's exactly like him since he has done it (males gawking at the gratuitous shots of female's underwear/bikinis/dresses) in the 2 Trek movies he directed and in the 3 M:I films he directed/produced. And also in Alias which he created/wrote/directed/produced.

Newton's character in particular was nothing more than an object for the male leads to battle over, and she was the only named or speaking female character in a film that failed every level of the Bechdel test. Beart's character was not nearly as bad, but was still basically just a romantic object and a cliched femme fatale, and ultimately a victim.

By that standards exactly the same applies to Rebecca Ferguson's character. Not to mention Paula Patton and Maggie Q who served simply as the token female agents and eye candy.

Michelle Monaghan's character in M:I:III was a fully realized human being that Ethan Hunt had an actual relationship with, rather than just falling into bed with after flirting through insanely reckless driving.

I never mentioned Michelle Monaghan's character. I specifically mentioned Maggie Q, Paula Patton and Rebecca Ferguson's characters.
By the way Mission:Impossible-III also fails the Bechdel test and even more miserably because it's the only one that has more than one female character!

It is an absolute mistake to equate the worth of a female character with how much skin she shows. That is sexist in itself, because it ignores everything about a woman except her body. If a female character has agency and depth and dimension and an independent story arc, then it doesn't matter if she spends the whole film naked -- she's still better-written than a fully clothed female who exists merely as a prize or McGuffin for the male characters.

Strawman. I never said the opposite.

 

[Christopher]

Umm, yes you were. Remember:

Different movie, different situation. My point all along has been that nudity/skin is not automatically a bad thing, it's a function of how it's handled. The problem with the STID scene was not that we could see Alice Eve's skin, the problem was that it wasn't handled well from a story or character perspective. She was being looked at in a state of undress in a situation where she didn't want to be. That's completely different from a case where a female character chooses to don a revealing garment and is seen by choice. What matters is not the amount of skin a female character shows in a scene, but the amount of consent and control she has.

By that standards exactly the same applies to Rebecca Ferguson's character. Not to mention Paula Patton and Maggie Q who served simply as the token female agents and eye candy.

You must've seen different movies than I did. Or else your memory of them is in need of refreshing.

I never mentioned Michelle Monaghan's character. I specifically mentioned Maggie Q, Paula Patton and Rebecca Ferguson's characters.

Which is an inexplicable omission, since Monaghan's character is far more important to M:I:III than Maggie Q's character. Again: She's the one who actually defeats the villain and saves the day. Single-handedly. How is that not important? Also, Monaghan is billed three slots higher in the film than Maggie Q; for that matter, Keri Russell is billed one slot higher. Of the three principal female leads of the film, you're ignoring the two main ones.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Different movie, different situation.

Oh really?

You must've seen different movies than I did. Or else your memory of them is in need of refreshing.

Funny. I could say the exact same thing to you.

Which is an inexplicable omission, since Monaghan's character is far more important to M:I:III than Maggie Q's character. Again: She's the one who actually defeats the villain and saves the day. Single-handedly. How is that not important? Also, Monaghan is billed three slots higher in the film than Maggie Q; for that matter, Keri Russell is billed one slot higher. Of the three principal female leads of the film, you're ignoring the two main ones.

Which is totally irrelevant because my point was how a certain director/producer portrays some of his female characters in many of his movies.

 

[Christopher]

Oh really?

That's... not even a response.

Funny. I could say the exact same thing to you.

And I could counter with:

https://christopherlbennett.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/mission-impossible-1996-movie-review-spoilers/
https://christopherlbennett.wordpre...ion-impossible-ii-2000-movie-review-spoilers/
https://christopherlbennett.wordpre...on-impossible-iii-2006-movie-review-spoilers/
https://christopherlbennett.wordpre...-ghost-protocol-2011-movie-review-spoilers-2/
https://christopherlbennett.wordpre...ible-rogue-nation-2015-movie-review-spoilers/

Which is totally irrelevant because my point was how a certain director/producer portrays some of his female characters in many of his movies.

It's relevant because context matters. You're treating all skin and sexuality as equally bad, and that's invalid, because it's the context that makes the difference.

 

[The Wormhole]

And Teal'c lines were redubbed.

There was also a CG sequence added using a ship which actually wasn't introduced on the show itself until the third season. But neither this nor Chris Judge redubbing his lines is really relevant to the matter of the nudity.

 

[BillJ]

Any nudity or gore, and I'd be done with the show.

I'll take it you haven't watched much Star Trek over the years? There is gore galore, and the catsuits never hid feminine features.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I'll take it you haven't watched much Star Trek over the years? There is gore galore, and the catsuits never hid feminine features.

Who said we're only talking about female nudity?

 

[BillJ]

Who said we're only talking about female nudity?

I'm a straight male, the female form sticks out more to me. I know Kirk and other males were also in various states of undress over the years.