They should all be naked. Discovery should be a ship were Starfleet is conducting a whole slate of interesting social experiments, some of which are kinky.
Next year’s ‘Star Trek’ reboot may have naked aliens and swearing, CBS digital chief says
- Thread starter dbcooper
- Start date
Captain (conducting familiarization tour) : And behind this door is Lena Dunham reprising her role of Hanna from female, ahem, hit HBO series "Girls".
Door opens. Some of the group of officers groan and avert their eyes.
Young female lieutenant : So this is what we've become as an enlightened people? Egotistical exhibitionists?
Older male lieutenant: No, it's a beautiful piece of performance art that questions our standards of beauty.
Male crewman: Hey! isn't that Kylo Ren?
Other male crewmen and two rather crass young women break into a goading chant: Kylo! Kylo! Kylo!
Dunham: Jesus Christ, will you people shut the
up!
Captain (closing door): Now that we've seen the obligatory and gratuitous nudity and profanity, next up is the Tarantino Hall of Graphic Violence.
Dunham (muted): I'm signing autographs later!
Door opens. Some of the group of officers groan and avert their eyes.
Young female lieutenant : So this is what we've become as an enlightened people? Egotistical exhibitionists?
Older male lieutenant: No, it's a beautiful piece of performance art that questions our standards of beauty.
Male crewman: Hey! isn't that Kylo Ren?
Other male crewmen and two rather crass young women break into a goading chant: Kylo! Kylo! Kylo!
Dunham: Jesus Christ, will you people shut the
fuck
Captain (closing door): Now that we've seen the obligatory and gratuitous nudity and profanity, next up is the Tarantino Hall of Graphic Violence.
Dunham (muted): I'm signing autographs later!
To be honest I think you're projecting that implication, it's not what I said at all. My problem is not with showing the human body, it's with using it to substitute for creativity and doing so so all pervasively that performers are hindering their career prospects if they say no. Trek is meant to be cerebral, to make you think, not to be a substitute for porn.
Can you think of any other line of work where it would be considered legitimate and right to tell someone they need not sexualise themselves for their job, but it will help?
Plenty, I agree totally, both are used as cheap gimmicks and unfortunately trek has been pretty guilty of the "cheap" part far too often. For all he achieved there's little doubt that GR was a pretty lecherous type who was fond of the casting couch.
No I'm not assuming that, although you've thrown me an awkward bone with David and Birth of Venus. Both are the products of societies so far removed in their norms, technology and customs from ours as to make direct comparison meaningless.
Its hard to believe, however, you feel Linda Park's breast shot or Alice Eve in her bra were examples of great art and in no way treating women as sex objects (or for that matter Chris Hemsworth, is it really all that different when its a man?).
Equally the various background extras you referred to earlier, do you seriously believe they are all feeling in some way empowered or are many just doing what they feel they have to in order to make a living and maybe a career?
Trek has historically had its moments of cheap exploitation, often under Gene Roddenberry, but that's not why it has stayed in the public consciousness, it has stayed there because it made people ask questions, because it altered the way they looked at the world. If the new show is being pitched on the basis of doubling as soft porn then that bodes very badly for the things that are supposed to really matter in the franchise.
No, it really isn't, nor is it Star Trek being genuinely liberal. Progress is when you make the world better, not when you exploit people to make money.
Frankly I'm pretty surprised how many of the posts here seem to basically boil down to "yeah, i want to see boobs!"
Last edited:
Yawn.........at this point they can say it MAY include anything from nudity to aggressive horny space hookers.............since they are painfully slow about releasing ANY actual information. I have been and still am a great supporter of this project, but I am starting to get a bit concerned. Would like a nice official press release soon about casting and production. It is mid-November now.
You're just proving my point. You're assuming, without a shred of evidence, that the only possible way for nudity to be used in a story is in a negative and exploitative way. You're not even acknowledging the possibility that it could be used in a positive or valuable way.
How about a story that makes you think by challenging society's assumption that nudity is bad? Or that makes you think by challenging the assumption that violence is okay but nudity is not? I'm trying to encourage you to think about those assumptions and see the problems with them.
Nudity isn't always sexual. It can have a number of meanings in different contexts. Was Ryan Reynolds's nudity after his transformation scene in Deadpool sexual? Certainly not.
Which has nothing to do with Star Trek Discovery, because Roddenberry has been dead for a quarter-century.
Of course those were gratuitous. My point is that it makes no sense to claim that every nude scene ever must be equally gratuitous. That's ridiculous. Nudity is like anything else -- it can be handled well or poorly, and it is absolutely dishonest to cherrypick the bad examples and pretend that they represent the only possibility.
Unfortunately, it is; our society makes far more big a deal out of the exposure of a woman's upper torso than a man's, and there's an unfortunate tendency to assume by default that a woman is powerless in any sexual situation whereas a man is powerful in any sexual situation. You're being incredibly disingenuous to claim there's no double standard there. But what I'm saying is that, ideally, there shouldn't be. If you can see a man taking his shirt off in a movie and still see him as strong, but if you think a woman is weak and victimized if she takes her shirt off in a movie, then maybe you should be questioning the double standard of your own assumptions.
I am not making any such blanket generalizations. It is the very concept of making reckless blanket generalizations that I object to. As with everything else, any given instance can be handled well or poorly. Just because there are instances where it's handled poorly, that doesn't mean it can never be done well.
Now you're just being ad hominem.
What's the big deal with there being profanity? Trek novels already have profanity as a matter of course, usually shit gets spoken quite a bit, but the word fuck has popped up twice, IIRC. Trek fans don't complain there, so why should they here?
As for nudity, I'm not against the idea, but unfortunately most of the time we get nudity or even underwear shots in shows it's usually just a case of we can so we will. Granted, that's probably what's happening here anyway. As long as it's not as embarrassing as the decon rubdowns or porno-massages on Enterprise were, I see no issue.
As for nudity, I'm not against the idea, but unfortunately most of the time we get nudity or even underwear shots in shows it's usually just a case of we can so we will. Granted, that's probably what's happening here anyway. As long as it's not as embarrassing as the decon rubdowns or porno-massages on Enterprise were, I see no issue.
My attitude about nudity in film is more "why not?" There's nothing wrong with the human body. We evolved nude, we're born nude, it's our natural state. So what's the big deal?
I tend to have more of a problem with the gratuitous lack of nudity -- e.g. when two characters who've just had sex off-camera are somehow wearing underwear when they lie together afterward. Why would they do that? Or when the woman carefully keeps herself covered with a blanket even though she's with her lover -- why would she bother? That just gives away the artifice by having her act as though she were aware of the camera that's supposedly not there. Or when a character has gone through a transformation, like to a werewolf or something, and they change back and they magically have clothes on again. Or their clothes grow or shrink with them. Or a male character undergoing a transformation ends up shirtless but a female character undergoing the same transformation doesn't. Or, say, in Legends of Tomorrow week before last where Nate's steel skin let him survive being blown up, yet his clothes, which weren't transformed with him, were magically still intact. There are a lot of circumstances in film/TV where characters logically would be naked but aren't, and those undermine my suspension of disbelief.
I tend to have more of a problem with the gratuitous lack of nudity -- e.g. when two characters who've just had sex off-camera are somehow wearing underwear when they lie together afterward. Why would they do that? Or when the woman carefully keeps herself covered with a blanket even though she's with her lover -- why would she bother? That just gives away the artifice by having her act as though she were aware of the camera that's supposedly not there. Or when a character has gone through a transformation, like to a werewolf or something, and they change back and they magically have clothes on again. Or their clothes grow or shrink with them. Or a male character undergoing a transformation ends up shirtless but a female character undergoing the same transformation doesn't. Or, say, in Legends of Tomorrow week before last where Nate's steel skin let him survive being blown up, yet his clothes, which weren't transformed with him, were magically still intact. There are a lot of circumstances in film/TV where characters logically would be naked but aren't, and those undermine my suspension of disbelief.
No, I freely admit they can be, and there really is no attitude I see in society that nudity is inherently bad, we've moved on from that already I think, if it ever truly existed. My concern though is that this statement clearly indicates that said nudity will be sexual and clearly is being used as a marketing ploy. "Come watch the new show, its star trek with extra boobs". That's doesn't sound like empowerment, it doesn't sound like great art, its sounding awfully like exploitation. If there were to be nude scenes that were there as a narrative necessity or character development, why seek the publicity?
I make no such claim, rather I'm saying there SHOULDN'T be a double standard, re read my post in that light, I'm actually in total agreement with you here. Nudity in either case is not inherently a problem, using it as a cheap gimmick to sell a show is, especially when that becomes so all pervasive it hampers the choices of actors and actresses looking for work.
It has everything to do with Discovery, because we only learn from our mistakes if we acknowledge them. Roddenberry did a great deal that was good, but he also made some glaring errors.
I went back and re-read the statement, and I don't see any such thing in it. All I see is a reference to the showrunners being pleased that they're no longer restricted from doing certain things if it serves the story. Celebrating that you theoretically can exercise a license doesn't prove that you intend to do so gratuitously.
Also, what the hell is wrong with something being sexual? You're still defaulting to the assumption that sex is bad, and I object to that. Sex is a healthy, natural, important part of human behavior. Yes, our society has unfortunately got some severely unhealthy hangups about it and twisted it into something it shouldn't be, but shame and fear of sexuality are part and parcel of that problem. Sexuality portrayed as a healthy, mature, giving, affectionate aspect of human behavior is not something that should be lumped into the same category as more juvenile, exploitative portrayals.
Unfair question. The interviewer asked the guy about the topic, and he answered. Reporters seek to generate stories. They fish for answers that will stir up reactions. And somehow people always blame the interview subjects for the interviewers' choice of focus.
I get your point here, I really do, although it seems your transferring some sense of society having a hang up onto my posts. Whether society has such an issue is debatable, I do not. If you knew me outside of this context you'd find the idea pretty laughable in fact.
Yes he was asked the question, but he no doubt had some idea as to which way the interview was going to go and could have answered in many possible ways. What he did was give the interviewer something that could be used and that may not have been deliberate, but if not it was a naively chosen response. Either option gives me cause for concern.
Sex isn't bad, I've said nothing intended to suggest it is. Using sex as an alternative hook to creativity, however, is.
You're a writer, surely you know how easy it is to write a quick sex scene compared to something which will challenge the reader, it's so easy because it's so fundamental and so universal. Sex is a good thing, but it's also a basic thing and I want trek to go beyond that and make me think. Historically though, trek has form for getting it very wrong and simply being exploitative or dumbing down to shoehorn the sex in, so this may well be a case of once bitten twice shy. It could be done well, but after fifty years of it mostly being done badly in an otherwise iconic show I'm doubtful.
My other objection is arguably more about the media as a whole in that I do strongly suspect there's an awful amount of pressure on performers to make career choices they may not be comfortable with but perceive as simply what they have to do, in ways that would simply be unacceptable in any other line of work. This is partially based on personal experience but also good old fashioned cynicism to an extent, even if the pressure is not directed personally (which it doubtless sometimes is) it's there abstracted out across the industry. Yes sex is a good thing, people feeling their choices with regard to their own bodies are limited if they wish to succeed is not.
As for my being ad hominem, I hope it was clear the comment wasn't aimed at you. On the contrary you've given pause for thought where others have not, but there has been a degree of immaturity shown throughout this thread.
Yes he was asked the question, but he no doubt had some idea as to which way the interview was going to go and could have answered in many possible ways. What he did was give the interviewer something that could be used and that may not have been deliberate, but if not it was a naively chosen response. Either option gives me cause for concern.
Sex isn't bad, I've said nothing intended to suggest it is. Using sex as an alternative hook to creativity, however, is.
You're a writer, surely you know how easy it is to write a quick sex scene compared to something which will challenge the reader, it's so easy because it's so fundamental and so universal. Sex is a good thing, but it's also a basic thing and I want trek to go beyond that and make me think. Historically though, trek has form for getting it very wrong and simply being exploitative or dumbing down to shoehorn the sex in, so this may well be a case of once bitten twice shy. It could be done well, but after fifty years of it mostly being done badly in an otherwise iconic show I'm doubtful.
My other objection is arguably more about the media as a whole in that I do strongly suspect there's an awful amount of pressure on performers to make career choices they may not be comfortable with but perceive as simply what they have to do, in ways that would simply be unacceptable in any other line of work. This is partially based on personal experience but also good old fashioned cynicism to an extent, even if the pressure is not directed personally (which it doubtless sometimes is) it's there abstracted out across the industry. Yes sex is a good thing, people feeling their choices with regard to their own bodies are limited if they wish to succeed is not.
As for my being ad hominem, I hope it was clear the comment wasn't aimed at you. On the contrary you've given pause for thought where others have not, but there has been a degree of immaturity shown throughout this thread.
Air conditioning. Who can agree on a temperature?
And what he said was, yes, they can do that now if it serves the story. That's pretty much all he said in the interview quoted in the first post of this thread, and I don't see a single thing wrong with saying that. I don't know where you're getting the other stuff you say you saw in it, unless you're getting it from some other source that quotes a longer portion of the interview.
And what I disagree with is the assumption that it has to be. Why should they be mutually inimical? Sex is an integral and essential part of human psychology and behavior. Good writing is about human emotion and interaction and relationships, and sexuality is interwoven with all of those things.
Again, I reject the claim that there is any dichotomy there at all. When I write sex scenes, I'm writing about emotions and relationships and characters' drives and needs.
There's a lot of sex and nudity in my original SF novel Only Superhuman, and yes, I wrote it to be entertaining and fun, just as I wrote in the action scenes and comedy bits to be entertaining and fun. But I also used the characters' sexuality as a way of exploring their emotions and needs and personal growth. And I explored matters of sexuality from a philosophical and ethical level. The book was an exploration of the positive and negative uses of power, including physical, political, familial, and sexual power over others. I specifically strove to write about sex in a way that was challenging and purposeful, because I wanted the book to be sexy without being shallow or gratuitous. Similarly, when I write about Deltan sexuality in my Star Trek novels, I'm not doing it to avoid challenge or complexity, I'm doing it because it's interesting to explore the beliefs and psychology of an alien civilization that embraces the sensual without shame. Exploring a culture whose sexual mores differ from our own can absolutely be challenging, just as exploring a different set of values about war or religion or progress or anything else can be challenging.
In any scene I write, whether it's a scene of characters having sex or fighting or talking or eating or anything else, the actions in the scene are there to illustrate the characters' motivations and needs and emotions. Even if you're writing a scene about a character, ohh, filling their car with gas or cleaning out their fridge, you still have to approach it from the perspective of what that character needs and wants and feels. That's what determines whether a scene is challenging. The outward action is just the framework on which you hang the characterization.
I've never to the best of my knowledge actually read your work, perhaps that needs rectified, but you must admit its very easy to write a basic sex scene that people will read without involving anything beyond the basic reality of the sexual response, which was my point. I'm not commenting on your own work, but drawing on your experience of the writing process.
For many its just an easy way to fill a page and keep the readers, or viewers, attention. Star Trek has tended to do this whenever it uses sex and nudity. When I say cheap I mean intellectually cheap, for the author and the audience. It has done so on occasions and has been guilty of being exploituve when doing so.
It hasn't typically been there to develop a character, to alter our perceptions of some dynamic, to give us any new level of understanding, its been titillation and that detracts from the point of the show whilst giving the writers an easy hook to reel in a certain demographic, often in a way that made a performer feel pressured or caused conflict when objections were raised (the Ilia shower scene springs to mind as a specific example, but GR was well known for this behaviour).
And that's what I'm saying. You're assuming I have experience with writing sex scenes as a substitute for doing something more challenging. I have no such experience, because I don't approach sex scenes in that way. After all, none of my published work has been erotica, so its sexual content hasn't been that explicit. The most graphic I've gotten was in Only Superhuman, and even there it was at most borderline softcore. So usually, when I write a sex scene, I'm writing about the emotion and the relationship more than the mechanics.
And I don't think it's fair to judge a future work on what past works have or haven't done. Past failures are no excuse to stop trying; on the contrary, they're a mandate to try harder and do better.
There's only a couple of times that Trek has made me uncomfortable (a bit) in terms of sex. It's not a serious thing, but it does bug me:
- this one line that Ilia had in TMP, about the fact that she'd never take advantage of a sexually immature species. I mean, I can understand what she means, but she could have been a bit less patronizing when she said that. And she said it to Decker's face, in front of the entire bridge crew. Now maybe she's bitter that he left her, but still...go easy on the guy, k?
- the thing in ENT when Trip won't sleep with Phlox's wife. Although that bit wasn't quite so bad, at least Phlox and Feezal waited unti Trip was out of earshot before they made fun of him about it.
I guess the thrust of the gist is, it's fine to show other concepts of sexuality and all that, as long as the show (or film or novel or whatever) doesn't make fun of those who aren't into it. People are always going to have preferences, things they don't like or won't do (well, people who aren't named Jack Harkness that is - in his case, there's probably nothing he won't do) - and so it's easy to look down on that as being "backward" or "primitive". I hope DSC doesn't do that.
- this one line that Ilia had in TMP, about the fact that she'd never take advantage of a sexually immature species. I mean, I can understand what she means, but she could have been a bit less patronizing when she said that. And she said it to Decker's face, in front of the entire bridge crew. Now maybe she's bitter that he left her, but still...go easy on the guy, k?
- the thing in ENT when Trip won't sleep with Phlox's wife. Although that bit wasn't quite so bad, at least Phlox and Feezal waited unti Trip was out of earshot before they made fun of him about it.
I guess the thrust of the gist is, it's fine to show other concepts of sexuality and all that, as long as the show (or film or novel or whatever) doesn't make fun of those who aren't into it. People are always going to have preferences, things they don't like or won't do (well, people who aren't named Jack Harkness that is - in his case, there's probably nothing he won't do) - and so it's easy to look down on that as being "backward" or "primitive". I hope DSC doesn't do that.
Attention all decks: The Love Instructors will be performing in the recreation room at 0500 hours tomorrow. They will be performing the latest hits from recent releases What's That Smell? and What Do You Mean You Want 50 Credits For Shuttlecraft Fare?
Similar threads
