Should there be an R rated Star Trek film?

[Spot261]

Up the violence? All three of the Abram-universe movies has shown people being blown into space to their obvious deaths, the transport accident in TMP still frightens me. Implied violence is common in Trek movies. Upping this to the point of spraying blood and acts of sadism I feel is un-neceassay. Cutting Geordi's torture scene in GEN (imo) was the right decision.

This, making the violence that little more gory will add.....yup, nothing. Many of our storylines require some form of danger or threat. Generally though we don't actually need to see people being disembowelled to understand they are dead. The difference between seeing people die violently and seeing people die in excruciatingly precise anatomical detail adds nothing that is actually of value in a trek movie. This isn't Tarantino.

Up the nudity? Carol posing in her PG-13 knickers was absurd, the cat sisters in bed with Kirk felt more natural and it fit the nuKirk character. Having the sisters be topless, or they (and Kirk?) be fully nude might have been interesting. But would Chris Pine have agreed to the latter?

Agreed.

Nudity for what sake exactly? Again, how would the film have actually been any better except adding titillation value? We don't generally pay to go watch trek movies in order to see people naked, we can watch porn for free online for that. There's plenty enough sex and nudity in the media already without any need for trek to challenge some non existent restrictions in the media or prejudices in a society. How about we let young good looking performers do their jobs without being treated like well paid pieces of meat for once.

Up the sex? Having Spock and Uhura engaging in overt sexual activity would add what to the plot? Or would it be just something to add to the trailer like Uhura pulling her top off in ST'09? Zoe Saldana has appear nude before and might not have a problem with doing so in a Trek movie.

See above

Depictions of hard drug use. If I knew ahead of time that the hero characters were going to be doing this, would be reason in itself for me to skip the movie. Drug use by the movies bad guys (or just background characters) could be different.

This could have been interesting. Drug usage could well become a plot point and is something trek could explore further. We've been there before of course on several occasions, but there's more potential substance here rather than the titillation or shock value of pointless nudity.

Up the harsh language? Some language (in America) brings a quick R rating, other words it depends on how they're being used. I associate some words with a lack of class, I want Starfleet to have some class.

It's all a question of writing the script to fit the character. It's entirely conceivable that many people in the 23rd century swear profusely and I'm happy to see that on screen. Most of our heroes, however, don't fall into that category and thus shoe horning it in would just seem wrong. Scotty and McCoy might well qualify as exceptions here.

 

[Amaris]

Definitely no more violence. What Trek does with how it implies death, or cuts away from certain death, is more than enough.

 

[SPCTRE]

Definitely up the steamy Decon Chamber/Gel(tm) scenes

also, shoehorn in some Vulcan Novelty Massage(tm) techniques for stress relief

look, just get Rick Berman, he'll know what to do

 

[Andy Hong]

An R-rating would probably only fit the Mirror Universe, maybe? A lot of things would not work - it's not like you can do a hardcore version of Vulcan Finger Touching?

 

[The Wormhole]

However I do love how O'Brien's shout of "bollocks" somehow got past American censors

Bollocks isn't considered a bad word in America. The average American probably never heard the word before, and indeed I have heard some people think it was just some weird alien word when O'Brien said it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Bollocks isn't considered a bad word in America. The average American probably never heard the word before, and indeed I have heard some people think it was just some weird alien word when O'Brien said it.

I'm confident that it's recognizable and/or discernible here as a term from across the Pond, but I doubt that most people know what it means.

 

[MadeIndescribable]

indeed I have heard some people think it was just some weird alien word when O'Brien said it.

Not sure which made me laugh the most, the idea of people thinking it's an alien word, or me reading that in Teal'c's voice because I saw your avatar and you said "indeed"...

 

[Jayson1]

A R rating I think is not always just about violence or nudity but sometimes subject matter. For example if you wanted to do movie were the villian was a pedophile I suspect that would garner a R rating even if nobody said foul language or their was no explicit sex stuff in the movie.

I got to admit though I'm not exactly sure what is seen as crossing the line sometimes when it comes to a R rated movie. I think the only rules I know is you can only say Fuck once in PG-13 but maybe you say Shit twice if the movie is overall more family friendly.

I do know that you use to be able to get away with more cussing in older 80's style movies though I think the rules about sex and violence has stayed the same more or less.

Jason

 

[MadeIndescribable]

I got to admit though I'm not exactly sure what is seen as crossing the line sometimes when it comes to a R rated movie. I think the only rules I know is you can only say Fuck once in PG-13 but maybe you say Shit twice if the movie is overall more family friendly.

I guess it depends in each country, but I'm pretty sure the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) takes context into account. ie,using f*ck just as a general expression of anger isn't as bad as using it as part of an insult.

 

[VulcanMindBlown]

I don't mean to be mamby-pamby, but Star Trek isn't really cut out for the R rating...

Sure, some of it is for mature, controversial themes, but they can't alienate everybody.

Like what was said before, Star Fleet has to have some standards and at least allude to being a professional government force.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Like what was said before, Star Fleet has to have some standards and at least allude to being a professional government force.

What does that have to do with an "R" rating? Plenty of films about professional government forces have been rated "R".

 

[David Brown]

Count me in the No camp.
Star Trek can be a fun family experience. The show has never been about those things that would garner it an R rating.
I was against the idea for comic book movies. It worked for Deadpool, but that's his character. I think studios grabbed the wrong message from that movie. Instead of the R rating working in that one instance, I think the message they got was "let's crank up the language and violence to get a gratuitous R rating" or, like Batman v Superman, an alternate cut on home media release. I don't like it unless it adds something to the story.
I'm also hearing rumblings that Discovery will intentionally push more boundaries and I'm finding that a turnoff. I think Captain Picard summed it up best when he told Q [paraphrasing] that we've moved beyond certain behaviors. Star Trek is best when it shows us what humanity can hope to achieve, not when it tries to appeal to the least common denominator. Aspire to something greater.

 

[MadeIndescribable]

I'm also hearing rumblings that Discovery will intentionally push more boundaries and I'm finding that a turnoff.

Depends in what way and for what reason. Going for an R rating just for the sake of it never works because it often is just too obvious. Something like Sense8 however is definitely is a more adult show than others for example, but features sex as something that's just a part of life which it doesn't shy away from. And it works.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I'm not opposed to the idea but I honestly don't see why it would be necessary. Deadpool really only makes sense as an R-rated film because that kind of content is inherent in the source material. But I just don't see what kind of Trek story requirements would necessitate that kind of rating.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Count me in the No camp.
Star Trek can be a fun family experience. The show has never been about those things that would garner it an R rating.

Star Trek was created as a show for adults. One meant to explore adult concepts and adult situations. Seeing it as a "fun family experience" runs counter to the intent behind the show and sentences it to the "SF is kiddie fare" ghetto it was created to counter. They wanted it to be sexy and pushed it a far as they could with the censors.

I was against the idea for comic book movies. It worked for Deadpool, but that's his character. I think studios grabbed the wrong message from that movie. Instead of the R rating working in that one instance, I think the message they got was "let's crank up the language and violence to get a gratuitous R rating" or, like Batman v Superman, an alternate cut on home media release. I don't like it unless it adds something to the story.

Comic book covers a lot of ground. Road to Perdition was based on a comic book. Men In Black Was based on a comic book. 300 was based on a comic book. American Splendor is based on a comic book.

think Captain Picard summed it up best when he told Q [paraphrasing] that we've moved beyond certain behaviors. Star Trek is best when it shows us what humanity can hope to achieve, not when it tries to appeal to the least common denominator. Aspire to something greater.

Which behaviors are those? Star Trek is an action adventure show. There will always be a some sort of fisticuffs involved. The level of which will depend on the story.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

Graphic violence doesn't fit with the tone Star Trek is supposed to have, and neither does strong profanity, IMO. I can't see what adding nudity would add to the franchise either. After the somewhat tenuous BO performance of Beyond, the last thing they need is to limit the audience.

 

[Gojira]

You can get away with a lot under PG-13 so R really isn't necessary in telling a Star Trek story.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

For the life of me, I will never understand the logic behind the American rating system. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between saying the word "fuck" once or ten times? They still said it out loud. I won't even go into the 'who cares about swear words' thing we Europeans often like harping on. Everyone feels differently about cuss words, which is fine. I just mean the rating of movies. Say "fuck" once, you're good. Say "fuck" five times, nope, that's rated R. Whyyyyyyyy?

As for an R-rated ST film, I think it could be good or not, depending on the story. For example, Logan really profited from not being as clean and sanitised as the other X-Men films. Mostly, though, I don't care. Game of Thrones added a fuckton of wannabe edgy bullshit just for shock value, which added nothing to the narrative and just made me roll my eyes super hard because it's so damn juvenile.

Oh, and ENT did drug addiction as a character subplot, remember?

 

[Romulan_spy]

I am not sure what the R rating would really add. You don't need the R rating to tell a good trek story. So really the only "advantage" I see, is if you want to market the movie as being more edgy than previous trek because it will have a nude scene or a lot of cursing in it.

 

[VulcanMindBlown]

What does that have to do with an "R" rating? Plenty of films about professional government forces have been rated "R".

I think that I was talking more about sex and profanity. See the other post I quoted below:

Graphic violence doesn't fit with the tone Star Trek is supposed to have, and neither does strong profanity, IMO. I can't see what adding nudity would add to the franchise either. After the somewhat tenuous BO performance of Beyond, the last thing they need is to limit the audience.