I'd have no problem with the female lead losing her shirt as often as Captain Kirk did. I mean, I hate double standards...
Next year’s ‘Star Trek’ reboot may have naked aliens and swearing, CBS digital chief says
- Thread starter dbcooper
- Start date
I'd have no problem with the female lead losing her shirt as often as Captain Kirk did. I mean, I hate double standards...
Discovery = Torchwood?
I hope not -- they only had male nudity.
I'd sooner Star Trek stay as U through PG-13 as it's always been. They've been able to get away with a lot inside those restrictions down the years, from exploding heads to titillation. I got into the show watching it with my Dad at a young age, and would hope to do with my own kids someday. In the way I basically can't see me doing with a lot of on-demand programming that blatantly push toward explicit sexual situations, with virtually no relevance to the plot.
Last edited:
Visiting Raisa or in the Mirror Universe....
Not saying there should be continuous nudity and sex, but if there are love interests or racy situations, they should be realistically portrayed. A race of naked people, for example. Seriously it won't be as frequent as in Westworld by definition, but then we don't even know the premise or story line yet.
Similar things were said when TNG debuted. I recall hearing Roddenberry himself lauding how being on syndication opened up the possibilities for these kinds of things, and while TNG season 1 was occasionally ambitious enough to push at the edges of that envelope, it soon settled down.
Totally agreed.
As any stand up comic will tell you, the irony of any kind of 'salacious content' is that it soons becomes humdrum and boring if it's overused. Swearing and nudity has more impact the less often we see it, because then when it does happen, it truly denotes that things have gotten to the next level for the characters. Game of Thrones' much lauded sex scenes have become very ordinary by this point, they actually hurt the show.
When Data drops a swear-word in Generations, or Riker in Insurrection, it has impact precisely because we rarely see those characters swear. If it were happening every episode, it'd just become normal. And therefore boring to the viewers.
Eronai said:
Totally agreed.
As any stand up comic will tell you, the irony of any kind of 'salacious content' is that it soons becomes humdrum and boring if it's overused. Swearing and nudity has more impact the less often we see it, because then when it does happen, it truly denotes that things have gotten to the next level for the characters. Game of Thrones' much lauded sex scenes have become very ordinary by this point, they actually hurt the show.
When Data drops a swear-word in Generations, or Riker in Insurrection, it has impact precisely because we rarely see those characters swear. If it were happening every episode, it'd just become normal. And therefore boring to the viewers.
Last edited:
With enough nudity and swearing The Outrageous Okona could go from one of the worst to one of the best.
Fact is if it is used right, and not just to show boobies (like Game of Thrones) I can enjoy some nudity. But if they use it just because they can ... It could get annoying
No damn it, "ON THE BRIDGE."Visiting Raisa or in the Mirror Universe....
Here an idea, we'll get 83 year old Nichelle Nichols to re-do the fan dance from TUC, well lit and not concealing any thing, edit it into a special edition re-release of TUC.
Would that make you people happy?
Seems I'm in the minority here in that Id like trek to stay largely above this stuff. Sex can happen between characters without us actually having to watch it. If I want to watch that I can easily find porn which does it better.
I watch trek for the ideas, the questions it asks, not the actors and actresses body parts. We have no shortage of naked bodies on TV and I'm not against that, but whether it adds anything here I doubt. On the contrary I think it detracts from everything that makes the show worthwhile and allows writers the luxury of being lazy and appealing to basic instincts rather than the intellect. It's hardly like those instincts aren't pandered to in the media already.
Yes GR wanted more sex in and fair enough, it was his show after all, but that isn't what has kept people watching and debating it 50 years on. How can a show really expect to be taken seriously when it champions female empowerment in one scene, then expects the actresses to bare their breasts for cheap titillation the next?
I watch trek for the ideas, the questions it asks, not the actors and actresses body parts. We have no shortage of naked bodies on TV and I'm not against that, but whether it adds anything here I doubt. On the contrary I think it detracts from everything that makes the show worthwhile and allows writers the luxury of being lazy and appealing to basic instincts rather than the intellect. It's hardly like those instincts aren't pandered to in the media already.
Yes GR wanted more sex in and fair enough, it was his show after all, but that isn't what has kept people watching and debating it 50 years on. How can a show really expect to be taken seriously when it champions female empowerment in one scene, then expects the actresses to bare their breasts for cheap titillation the next?
I couldn't care less about swearing either way, but I'd love to see casual nudity in Trek. The original show was very sexy, being in the age of Women's Lib and the Sexual Revolution, and it's kind of sad to see how conservative the show and its fanbase have become over the years. It boggles my mind that we're so far into the 21st century and we still have these religious taboos where people think that we should be "above" nudity and that the human body is "gratuitous" and so forth. Trek is supposed to be a dynamic, progressive future. Let's get those clothes off and make the conservatives squirm. 
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.
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.
Nudity and swearing on STAR TREK would be a reflection of the morality (or lack of) in 2016 Hollywood.
Think about it!:
These producers are only making this Spinoff as a tool to get people to pay for CBS ALL ACCESS. This show is only being made... as a lure.
These Producers are just making a variation of a Show... that's already been done 6x already! Without employing the imagination or creativity required of putting it beyond the 24th Century and having to actually imagine technology and a universe beyond THE NEXT GENERATION. You know- real EFFORT. Then adding nudity and swearing.
It's kind of embarrassing. This show is about agendas- from its very existence, to its characters, to luring geek basement dwellers with Hollywood's base moral compass of needing swearing and nudity over ideas. If you need nudity in Star Trek as a viewer, it probably because you seldom experience it in real life.
I think Star Trek needs to be held to a higher standard. What's next? A nude LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE with cussing?
This is what happens when you let talentless hacks play in the sandbox made by more talented people. This show is in t-r-o-u-b-l-e folks. It doesnt exist on the merits of an original story. Because it is a desperate tool.
Think about it!:
These producers are only making this Spinoff as a tool to get people to pay for CBS ALL ACCESS. This show is only being made... as a lure.
These Producers are just making a variation of a Show... that's already been done 6x already! Without employing the imagination or creativity required of putting it beyond the 24th Century and having to actually imagine technology and a universe beyond THE NEXT GENERATION. You know- real EFFORT. Then adding nudity and swearing.
It's kind of embarrassing. This show is about agendas- from its very existence, to its characters, to luring geek basement dwellers with Hollywood's base moral compass of needing swearing and nudity over ideas. If you need nudity in Star Trek as a viewer, it probably because you seldom experience it in real life.
I think Star Trek needs to be held to a higher standard. What's next? A nude LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE with cussing?
This is what happens when you let talentless hacks play in the sandbox made by more talented people. This show is in t-r-o-u-b-l-e folks. It doesnt exist on the merits of an original story. Because it is a desperate tool.
Last edited:
See, my problem with "above" is that it implies that sex and the human body are bad. I think that's an unhealthy attitude. What is wrong with a society that thinks it's fine to show human bodies being tortured and wounded and destroyed, yet obscene to show human bodies being given pleasure and love? I'd much rather live in a world where we considered violence to be the thing we needed to stay above. We should be ashamed of the human capacity for hate, not the capacity for love.
So can violence, and yet that's all over the airwaves.
The problem there is that you're assuming that all portrayals of sexuality are equally cheap, and that is completely wrong. Nudity and sexuality can be handled tastefully or exploitatively. Is Michelangelo's David cheap? Is Botticelli's Birth of Venus cheap? The human body itself is not the problem. It's not intrinsically a bad thing. What matters is whether the owner of the body is treated with respect.
To me, assuming that a woman is demeaning herself simply by showing a characteristically female body part is sexist and not empowering at all. If we really believe a woman is worthy of respect, then we should respect her just as much whether she's fully clothed or completely naked. Either way, it should be her choice, and we should not treat her body itself as if it's the thing that degrades her, because her body is a part of her and it is as worthy as she is.
In Luke Cage, Simone Missick's Misty Knight exposed more of her body than any woman in any Marvel Cinematic Universe production ever has before, and yet that did not in any way diminish my capacity to take her seriously as the coequal lead character of the series, a smart and strong and tough cop who was just as impressive as the titular leading man and who totally deserves her own spinoff. Any more than the blatant fanservice scene in Thor of Jane and Darcy ogling Thor as he bathed his bare upper torso was disempowering to him.
Well, Picard was on show way back in Chain of Command. TNG was a real trail blazer for that.
I don't want it to overshadow the show like some of those historical/fantasy programs where it becomes instrusive rather than complementary to what is going on.
I don't want it to overshadow the show like some of those historical/fantasy programs where it becomes instrusive rather than complementary to what is going on.
It's ridiculous that nudity is still so taboo in the first place. Killing and murder? Blood and gore? Cyborg zombies and flesh robbers? It's a sci-fi show! What's the problem!?
The naked human body? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
While I might have second thoughts introducing the show to my little sister when it comes out, I have no problem with this at all. In a sense, it's Star Trek being progressive and getting conservatives mad just as they always have!
The naked human body? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
While I might have second thoughts introducing the show to my little sister when it comes out, I have no problem with this at all. In a sense, it's Star Trek being progressive and getting conservatives mad just as they always have!
Similar threads
