I worked in the NHS for years...so yes, yes it did.
(We even had that funny little flashing red grill light cupboard like the one in Kirks quarters)
Next year’s ‘Star Trek’ reboot may have naked aliens and swearing, CBS digital chief says
- Thread starter dbcooper
- Start date
I worked in the NHS for years...so yes, yes it did.
(We even had that funny little flashing red grill light cupboard like the one in Kirks quarters)
Yeah I know what sex is but thanks for the explanation anyway.
I disagree with your assessment about that scene in particular and the other sex scenes in Jessica Jones.
We don't need to actually see them in action to understand what was happening. It doesn't take a great deal to imply to the viewer what is going on between two characters. I'm of the opinion that just showing the two of them bonking is a pretty lazy way to highlight the point.
It's a been a good few years since I watched it but season 6 of Buffy with Buffy and Spike seemed to do a better and more subtle job of showcasing Buffy going all out with Spike without actually showing them having sex.
I just don't see why there should be anything wrong with it. You can imply that a character drove from one place to another, but that doesn't make it wrong to show them driving. You can imply that, ohh, MacGyver put together a makeshift gadget off-camera, but that doesn't make it wrong to show him building it on-camera. By treating sex as somehow less acceptable to depict than other human activities, you're implicitly saying there's something bad about it, and I don't accept that.
Anyway, it should be up to the individual storyteller to decide whether a specific story calls for depicting a specific thing overtly or not. That freedom of choice is essential. For audiences as well as creators, because different audiences have different preferences. The fact that you personally don't like something doesn't mean it has no value, because other people have their own distinct tastes and it is absolutely good and right that they do. There should be different kinds of story targeted at different audience tastes and sensibilities. For instance, I don't write my Star Trek fiction with the same level of adult content and language that I use in my original fiction, because I'm writing for distinct audiences in those cases. You might be more comfortable reading my Trek work than my original work, but my goal is not to target only a single person's tastes.
That's a long winded way of saying of it's all about an individuals preferences isn't it ?
When I was younger I had no problems with sex scenes on Tv, now I think they have become so commonplace that I have grown weary of them and more often than not, they serve little purpose to the story.
However, like pretty much everything else, context comes into play.
There's nothing bad about sex, but you can't really compare it to any old human activity can you, there is still very much a taboo regarding how sex is portrayed on Tv.
There's not so much of a taboo regarding a person driving a car.
Lucky you. Our hospitals tend to be drab in color. A lot of grey and green with plain florescent lighting. No rooms bathed in red, purple or green.
Yes, as in, nobody gets to say that a story shouldn't be done a certain way because they don't care for it. Just because you don't personally like something, that doesn't mean the creators were wrong to do it.
And my point is that I consider that an unhealthy double standard. Western society has some deeply dysfunctional hangups about sex and the human body, and they do far more harm than good. In fact, they're the reason that sex is so often treated pruriently and demeaningly; it's two sides of the same coin. Sex positivity in fiction helps counter those unhealthy taboos and hangups and the negative, degrading ideas that come with them.
They didn't backpedal as such, Showtime wanted nudity in the show, but the show's producers weren't interested in showing nudity as they wanted it to be family oriented. As a compromise, the producers agreed to nudity in the pilot and Showtime agreed not to force the issue again. Years later when a special edition of the pilot was made, the nudity was removed.
That was 20 years ago.
And Teal'c lines were redubbed.
Fair point, but again, given trek's almost unprecedented cultural impact and commercial success without the sex and nudity why tamper? Why not simply accept that trek works best without it?
If you believe the meme that beauty and sexuality are exploitative and can't be as artistic, humorous, or meaningful as any other aspect of humanity is liberal, then I can't help you.
You're right, in a remarkably trivial sense. Liberalism for me is fundamentally about far more important questions, however, such as how we value our fellow human beings, how we asasert their inherent worth and how society reflects that.
In the world we currently inhabit trek has an important role as a vehicle of liberal ideals. How we prioritise and express those ideals will in turn bear on how meaningful an influence the show can hope to be. With the opportunity to represent the gay community with a strong character who will challenge pre conceptions and make people think, not act as wank fodder. Even if Christopher is right (and I hope he is) that message is surely better expressed by focusing on that character as a capable, meaningful person, rather than their bedroom activities. Yes those portrayals can be done tastefully and respectfully, but that is no guarantee that the audience and attendent media focus will follow suit.
I'm actually inclined to disagree about the extent of this supposed hang up we have in society about sex, at least in Europe. The media (especially online) is hardly short of TV shows using sex in a sensational way (or outright porn), but it IS short of shows doing what trek has traditionally done, use entertainment and metaphor as a vehicle for making people think in ways they might not in a world which is returning to hate and bigotry at a scary pace.
Which matters more?
How so?
A shame, if true. I just Googled and got a quote from her saying, ""There is sexuality throughout the movie", she said. "Chris (Pine) comes in in a very skin-tight suit and you… can see him. He has his top off at the beginning. Benedict (Cumberbatch) did a shower scene that wasn’t in the movie. I think that to ignore an element of sexuality is to ignore an element of humanity", she argued." Maybe she said something different elsewhere, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it. In any case, if she or any audience members have a problem with "that scene," it's just emblematic of the problems our culture has with beauty and sexuality. Those religious roots run deep.
The relative importance of issues is irrelevant. What's important is that we have seven pages of panic attacks already over the thought of nudity in Star Trek, as well as your implication that beauty or sexuality lowers the value of human beings.
Implying that nudity somehow precludes strong Gay characters is kind of a weird non sequitur. And reducing beauty and sexuality to "wank fodder" is emblematic of the negative attitude toward sexuality in our culture. We see that a lot in this thread and in general. "Base." "Demeaning." "Puerile." "Exploitive." We really should be beyond that at this point.
Why pretend it's a contest? Why not address all aspects of a regressing world, including its Medieval attitude toward sexuality?
Exactly the kind of attitudes which many will likely have towards the show given the publicity already being seen. We risk overshadowing everything meaningful and genuinely progressive about the show with the perception it's just soft porn with space ships. Many WILL see it that way and miss more important aspects as a result
Because some issues are in far more dire need of addressing than others, but risk being overshadowed even IF the sex is done well (and tyhat's a big if).
We want people thinking about the issues being portrayed, not seeing the show as simply being yet another avenue for titillation. Yes the human body is beautiful, but it is already celebrated throughout the media to the point of saturation. There's nothing new trek can add here.
Why draw attention away from the many things that remain almost exclusively trek's domain, things that are sorely unseen throughout the media, especially if we run the very real risk it will be taken less seriously as a result?
I watched the episode the first time they aired it (in Italy). And I remember vividly how that scene seemed out of place. Until then the pilot seemed PG-13 stuff and then DANG, a nude scene that had nothing to do with the story, and that was useless to move on the narrative. I thought that the episode could well do without that scene and a friend of mine was of the same opinion.
And I am one of those snubby Europeans that thinks Americans-are-a-bunch-of-hypocrites-because-they-love-violence-but-they-are-terrified-by-sex-and-by-the-sight-of-a-naked-human-body.
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.
Star Trek has always been soft core porn with spaceships. You telling me Sherry Jackson or Jeri Ryan needed those very visible camel toes to move the story forward?
Judging from all the (IMHO, regrettable) hate directed at TOS-R - most notably in the actual TOS forum - I'd say people ARE saying that.
Last edited:
Judging from all the (IMHO, regrettable) hate directed at TOS-R - most notably in the actual TOS forum - I'd say people ARE saying that.
The folks in the TOS forum are a very small percentage of Trek fans. I never had a problem with the idea behind TOS-R, just found the execution lackluster.
Ok, it has absolutely nothing to do with "religious roots." My gf is not religiously conservative in any sense. She (and I, for that matter) are feminists, and how women's bodies are portrayed (re: used) in media is frequently a problem. I don't have the time or energy to explain this if it needs explaining, so I'll just leave it at that. Writing off criticism of sexism in media as a religious conservatism reaction is frankly ridiculous and misses the point completely.
Similar threads
