Spoilers R rated content - what does it add?

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't see how 24th century Star Trek shows humanity as anything different than TOS or ENT.

It's mostly Picard's "evolved sensibility" and his lament/handwringing about deliberately or accidentally taking life. Kirk wrestled with the death of the Salt Vampire for like five minutes and then said "Well, aint that a shame..." He didn't loose any sleep over the space amoeba and was totally gung ho for killing the horta until he encountered it and discovered that it wasn't actually all that aggressive after all.

In TNG, it's only the crew who doesn't have conflict.

In TOS, they did.

Having no conflict among crewmembers adds a bit of realism.

Only to people who have never actually had to lead a team of people from a diverse background towards a common goal. Conflict is inevitable and should be expected; how you deal with conflict is at least as important as how you deal with harmony.

TOS didn't really have any inter crew conflick either

Of course they did. They had conflicts, rivalries, arguments and sometimes outright pissing matches. They dealt with them.

TNG shows us a version of humanity where all conflicts have been eliminated by virtue of the crew's compulsive desire for comformity. That is, they don't wind up in conflict with one another because they go out of their way to suppress any differences they might have and strive to be as similar as possible to one another.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Honestly, I'm not sure it's all that dubious. Carpenters get paid for their work. Podiatrists get paid for their work. Doctors and lawyers and cooks and truckers and electricians expect to get paid for their labors. Not sure why society often seems to think that artists are supposed to be above all that, except that, yes, people do tend to overly romanticize art and artists, as opposed to realizing that it's just a job like any other.

None of which means it's only about the money. Good doctors care about their patients. Good teachers want to educate their students. Good carpenters and plumbers take pride in their work, etc. Doesn't mean they want to do it for free, just for the love of it.

There's no rule that says artists have to starve in garrets . . .

There's artistry in craftsmanship, of course. But the difference is that "A Great Work of Art" and "a job well done" aren't judged by the same standards at all. The most gifted short-order cook in the world can crank out a dozen denver skillets that look like something a magic genie would produce if you asked for the Perfect Breakfast, but at the end of the day even a beautiful denver skillet is only worth $6.99 on the menu.

Put this another way: Michaelangelo's masterpieces are a testament to his skill as an artist, but so too is his skill as a forger. His work was so good that he managed to fool the experts of his time with surprising reliability. His ability to make masterpieces is what he is known for, but his ability to make incredibly realistic forgeries is what made him truly successful.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Much as we romanticize it, there has always been a dubious relationship between art and money.

My point exactly. But somehow only Gene Roddenberry gets crap from some Trek fans because he wanted comfortable living from his work and creations?! Thus we come back to this...

"Making money = Gene’s Vision" joke...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My point exactly. But somehow only Gene Roddenberry gets crap from some Trek fans because he wanted comfortable living from his work and creations?! Thus we come back to this...

And the REASON we come back to this, time and time again, is because TOS wasn't meant to be Gene's masterpiece. That was his artistic equivalent of Michelangelo's forgeries. It's something he did with the intention of making enough money to live out his dreams.

Technically, TMP wasn't even his masterpiece, even though it was damn close. Phase-II was basically his baby, and the studio hated his version of it and most of the creative team helping him develop it didn't get along with him or agree with his choices. When Paramount turned Phase-II into a movie, they kicked Gene out of the producer chair and gave it to someone who knew what he was doing, and TMP was the result. Gene got control again for TNG, and dusted off some of his more cherished ideas for TNG, resulting in episodes like "Haven" and "Angel One" which are now remembered as some of the Star Trek's all-time dumbest episodes.

Meanwhile, the shows he REALLY watched to pitch like "Earth: Final Conflict" and "Andromeda" were high on concept and low on potential and were only ever developed after his death.

Rodenberry was a good artist, but Rodenberry being a good artist isn't what made Star Trek great. It wasn't HIS masterpiece, it was the collective work of many talented people over time that made Star Trek what it finally became, and some of the best installments of Star Trek -- notably Wrath of Khan and TUC -- were made IN SPITE of his choices, not because of them.

 

[Greg Cox]

Much as we romanticize it, there has always been a dubious relationship between art and money. Artists will produce a few really great pieces that everyone remembers, and then they will produce a bunch of meaningless bullshit that actually pays the bills..

Although posterity can be unpredictable. Sometimes the stuff created to pay the bills achieves immortality while the labors of love and would-be masterpieces are forgotten. See Conan Doyle, Gilbert & Sullivan, Bram Stoker, etc.

Artists are not always the best judges of their own work.

 

[Prax]

They are often their own biggest critics.

I have a sister who went to college for Fine arts, and another who went for Graphic Design, but minored in Photography.

Both received their respective Bachelor's degrees, and neither have ever made a steady living doing anything related to their education, despite many attempts over the years, and they're both incredibly talented.

One has done a lot of freelance photography for magazines, tourist guides, etc, sporadically over the years(on the side), and the other has had minor success creating various designs of various items and selling them online(also on the side).

They work "regular" jobs, as do all of their friends from college who pursued a similar education. I am of the belief that this is a common story for most people that pursue a career in the Arts, including drama students.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

And the REASON we come back to this, time and time again, is because TOS wasn't meant to be Gene's masterpiece. That was his artistic equivalent of Michelangelo's forgeries. It's something he did with the intention of making enough money to live out his dreams.

Technically, TMP wasn't even his masterpiece, even though it was damn close. Phase-II was basically his baby, and the studio hated his version of it and most of the creative team helping him develop it didn't get along with him or agree with his choices. When Paramount turned Phase-II into a movie, they kicked Gene out of the producer chair and gave it to someone who knew what he was doing, and TMP was the result. Gene got control again for TNG, and dusted off some of his more cherished ideas for TNG, resulting in episodes like "Haven" and "Angel One" which are now remembered as some of the Star Trek's all-time dumbest episodes.

Meanwhile, the shows he REALLY watched to pitch like "Earth: Final Conflict" and "Andromeda" were high on concept and low on potential and were only ever developed after his death.

Rodenberry was a good artist, but Rodenberry being a good artist isn't what made Star Trek great. It wasn't HIS masterpiece, it was the collective work of many talented people over time that made Star Trek what it finally became, and some of the best installments of Star Trek -- notably Wrath of Khan and TUC -- were made IN SPITE of his choices, not because of them.

Although I disagree with some of the details above I would say that that’s a more or less fair assessment of Gene Roddenberry’s life and work.

Unlike the sex & drugs orgies and mega-money fantasies some have built and continue to perpetuate around here.

 

[KlingonCereal]

Now, don't get me wrong. I am no prude or stranger to R rated content. But my question is, does Star Trek need it? I feel that it is being done just so they can try and ape Game of Thrones

I think the industry as a whole is going through a phase of "freedom" regarding writing. First with channels like HBO allowing more sensitive content, and now with online content distribution. Suddenly they don't have to worry about regulations, neighboring timeslots, or reruns. People watch the show when they watch it and only if they watch it. I think Game of Throne's famous nudity and what not (haven't watched the show, so don't know much more than that) definitely affected not only Discovery's writing but many other shows in recent years. In the end, I think if they handle it right then no hamr is done. But eventually it could reach a point of just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Star Trek does exist and it does have an established style. Ignoring that would do great harm to their show, I think. Thus far they haven't done that just yet, in my opinion.

 

[ralfy]

Gene Rodenberry was a writer and TV producer, not a politician. He didn't have a "vision for humanity," he had a story.


Rodenberry didn't think so at the time.

Having a vision of a future is not limited to politicians. Where did you get such an idea?

A writer can express his vision through his written works. That's what GR did, and that's what viewers saw.

 

[ralfy]

I agree. Roddenberry's "vision" (to your point, more accurately described as a "concept") was actually relatively simple-

Humanity survives despite its basic instincts for violence and pettiness. People of Earth learn to unify and work together to achieve space flight. We head off into the galaxy together to explore and try to grow our knowledge and wisdom while serving as members of a broader galactic community.

That was it.

There was no "utopia" or evolved humanity. Quite the opposite actually, humanity was basically the same...just that we'd acquired some learning and wisdom through our struggles and put aside, as a species, some of the broader ugliness (like war on a planetary scale, and hating/killing because of different political or spiritual beliefs). But, person-to-person, we were essentially the same, right down to violent instincts, prejudices, flaws and greed.

I wouldn't call that "some."

 

[ralfy]

Their CREATIONS certainly were. But Michelangelo was an artist, not a visionary. The vast majority of the work he did was specifically for the purpose of GETTING PAID, most of which involved carving forgeries and passing them off as antiques to collectors who didn't know any better (and he was pretty damn good at it).

Much as we romanticize it, there has always been a dubious relationship between art and money. Artists will produce a few really great pieces that everyone remembers, and then they will produce a bunch of meaningless bullshit that actually pays the bills.

Which is, let's face it, probably why TOS had a dozen or so really great episodes bracketted by 20 mediocre ones and 40 shit ones.

If we follow a 2010 paper on him he probably was one as well. And then there's his poetry.

Surely, you must have seen something more than just money when you were watching Trek TV shows and movies for years!

 

[Vger23]

I wouldn't call that "some."

How wonderful for you

 

[fireproof78]

My point exactly. But somehow only Gene Roddenberry gets crap from some Trek fans because he wanted comfortable living from his work and creations?! Thus we come back to this...

Only when it somehow is transcendent and that the fact that the current corporation wants to make money is somehow "evil."

 

[ralfy]

How wonderful for you

Not so much "some of the broader ugliness" but the bulk of it.

 

[jaime]

It ads everything. I'd say it's essential. How do you deal with serous subject matters like war, racism, personal redemption without showing it. And how can you represent it in a satisfactory manner without an R rating?

Go watch TOS. War. Racism. Personal Redemption. No R rating. The other Treks managed it as well. All without R ratings. Ninety percent of Trek fans already know the exact episodes which cover that, so I won’t be condescending and rattle off the titles.

 

[rahullak]

Although posterity can be unpredictable. Sometimes the stuff created to pay the bills achieves immortality while the labors of love and would-be masterpieces are forgotten. See Conan Doyle, Gilbert & Sullivan, Bram Stoker, etc.

Artists are not always the best judges of their own work.

I'm thinking also that great works of art may not have all that much popular appeal (until it is popularized by winning awards and recognition) and the money-makers that happen to sell more in the market don't have the high artistic flavor that's needed to win awards and the hearts of connoisseurs.

While I love the Harry Potter books, I don't think they won any big awards like Booker or Nobel etc.

Here's a question though: when artists start on a project are they thinking: "A'right, time to start on this idea. This work is gonna be my greatest masterpiece once it's done!", or "Time to make some quid, what can I start off with and flip it over quickly?", or some combination of these or neither of these?

 

[fireproof78]

Here's a question though: when artists start on a project are they thinking: "A'right, time to start on this idea. This work is gonna be my greatest masterpiece once it's done!", or "Time to make some quid, what can I start off with and flip it over quickly?", or some combination of these or neither of these?

The short answer is-it depends. I've met artists who are just trying to get by and who are just muddling through. And, then I meet authors and artists who are like "I have to get this exactly right or it will fail."

It's a large continuum.

 

[jaime]

I'm thinking also that great works of art may not have all that much popular appeal (until it is popularized by winning awards and recognition) and the money-makers that happen to sell more in the market don't have the high artistic flavor that's needed to win awards and the hearts of connoisseurs.

While I love the Harry Potter books, I don't think they won any big awards like Booker or Nobel etc.

Here's a question though: when artists start on a project are they thinking: "A'right, time to start on this idea. This work is gonna be my greatest masterpiece once it's done!", or "Time to make some quid, what can I start off with and flip it over quickly?", or some combination of these or neither of these?

They won the children’s literature equivalent xD

 

[Greg Cox]

Here's a question though: when artists start on a project are they thinking: "A'right, time to start on this idea. This work is gonna be my greatest masterpiece once it's done!", or "Time to make some quid, what can I start off with and flip it over quickly?", or some combination of these or neither of these?

The only honest answer is: It depends. On the individual, on the project, on the circumstances. And chances are, it's not an either/or situation, but more of a spectrum. "I'm going to write a dime novel for some quick cash, but it's going to be the best damn pulp novel I can write."

As I understand it, Clint Eastwood had a policy of doing "one for the studio, one for me." He'd alternate more commercial fare (another DIRTY HARRY flick, say) with more personal, passion projects. Not a bad approach.

What's ironic, of course, is when that silly pop song you dashed off to make some quick cash becomes a beloved classic but nobody remembers that "serious" concerto you put your heart and soul into . . .

 

[fireproof78]

What's ironic, of course, is when that silly pop song you dashed off to make some quick cash becomes a beloved classic but nobody remembers that "serious" concerto you put your heart and soul into . . .

"Love Actually" has a great scene with an artist trying to write an iconic Christmas song and calling it "rubbish."