Should there be an R rated Star Trek film?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Can I have an R-rated Trek series instead? Or since this is all hypothetical, no film and a couple of awesome series? Yeah, yeah, I know it doesn't work that way.
I wonder what would happen if they kept the violence and nudity the same but simply allowed more cuss words. I think most people would be okay with that? Shit for example is a word that I have noticed is no longer seen as graphic as it use to. I think the on;y cuss words that are still seen as off limits to many networks are those that are sexual in nature. For example if someone said Fuck in terms of having sex that would be off limits but if it's simply used as means of letting out frustration or anger it is seen as okay. Except on HBO and Showtime were everything is okay.
Jason
Jason
They an do an R-rated Trek film on one condition: Chris Pine has to REALLY channel his inner Shatner and go,
"Khan, you cocksucker!"
"Khan, you cocksucker!"
Pretty sure that's the homage porn.
"Superior intellect breeds superior urges"...
"Superior intellect breeds superior urges"...
I think there are definitely stories in the Trek universe that could be told in a way that required a more adult rating. Rather than thinking of it as "Star Trek stories told in an R-rated way", I think of it as stories that require adults-only storytelling - and we all, I think, can agree that those stories exist in drama and historical fiction - set in the Trek universe. Put another way, I don't think there is actually anything inherent to Trek that precludes a story which requires adults-only storytelling.
Mostly this would be in the area of violence or dark content. The things Ron Moore did with Battlestar Galactica would not fly in Star Trek, and that was a big part of the reason he left the franchise. He *wanted* to tell those more complex stories, with characters who did horrible things to themselves and others. Harlan Ellison's original treatment for City On The Edge Of Forever had a crewman using and selling illegal drugs, but that didn't make it past Roddenberry because there was zero way it would have gotten past the censors. And yet drug abuse is a powerful subject matter that shouldn't be reduced to the Saturday Morning Cartoon level of TNG's Symbiosis; when it is reduced to that level it loses all gravitas. AIDS is another place where Trek dropped the ball and gave us a truly mediocre allegory about it which did nothing to actually address the issue with the importance it deserved, because it had to dance around so many of the actual issues.
I guess I still remember 1986, when people were asking the same thing about Batman and comicbook characters, and Frank Miller said "there is absolutely a place for adult content in comicbooks" (not an actual quote) and gave us the absolutely game-changing Dark Knight Returns.
Mostly this would be in the area of violence or dark content. The things Ron Moore did with Battlestar Galactica would not fly in Star Trek, and that was a big part of the reason he left the franchise. He *wanted* to tell those more complex stories, with characters who did horrible things to themselves and others. Harlan Ellison's original treatment for City On The Edge Of Forever had a crewman using and selling illegal drugs, but that didn't make it past Roddenberry because there was zero way it would have gotten past the censors. And yet drug abuse is a powerful subject matter that shouldn't be reduced to the Saturday Morning Cartoon level of TNG's Symbiosis; when it is reduced to that level it loses all gravitas. AIDS is another place where Trek dropped the ball and gave us a truly mediocre allegory about it which did nothing to actually address the issue with the importance it deserved, because it had to dance around so many of the actual issues.
I guess I still remember 1986, when people were asking the same thing about Batman and comicbook characters, and Frank Miller said "there is absolutely a place for adult content in comicbooks" (not an actual quote) and gave us the absolutely game-changing Dark Knight Returns.
Because not all audiences appreciate the same things? Many adults don't care to see anything Y7, the only technical difference in either rating is a mere restriction, meaning nobody under the age of 7 is likely going to understand or be age-appropriate for the material being ostensibly discussed. Kinda like putting up a "road closed to trucks weighing more than 7 tons" because the road material cannot handle anything larger. Or "bridge restricted to 60 inch tall vehicles or smaller" even though the SUV truck driver's vehicle is 70 inches and thinks it's A-OK to go there anyway and cause bigger problems... the only difference here is more a psychological one than physically tangible... Let's get the 5 year olds to see as much blood and guts and nasty things - which people wrote such nasty things in the 1800s but evolution had people realizing doing that was wrong, or so the theory goes... And because nobody has common sense, it's all good...
I probably would not watch it, because often the "R" rating is far more of gratuitous attention grabbing, rather than adding anything substantial to the story.
There isn't a single Star Trek story that I can think (though someone will correct me) that can't be told within a PG-13 rating.
There isn't a single Star Trek story that I can think (though someone will correct me) that can't be told within a PG-13 rating.
Meh---but parents are offended by a lot more now. Seems like everyone is.
Which kind of goes to the point that what is suitable and not suitable for a particular audience is NOT universally accepted. How one interprets content to be unsuitable is all about personal taste. Like would you say that every single Marvel movie is on the same acceptance level as the dark and gritty 'The Dark Knight' movie? That movie made the first Thor film look like a G rated film.
The only X-Men films I have seen are Deadpool and Logan. And what did those films have? Brutal violence (gaping wounds, blood splatters, people being killed in creative ways), fun insults (Deadpool's "suck a cock!" or Charles telling Logan to fuck off), some... creative T&A (Deadpool getting pegged by his gal on International Women's Day comes to mind) and a lot of swearing. Could Trek benefit from this? Not especially. Trek characters will say "shit" from time to time but upping it to "fuck" wouldn't do much unless we had Samuel L. Jackson playing an Admiral who has had it with these muthafuckin' Borg... (and even then while some fans would cheer others would groan). And do we need to see a character get split in half by a bat'leth so their guts spill out as if they just got chopped up by Jason Vorhees? I could do without that. Drugs could be done by metaphor, so you end up with alien technology that induces feelings of euphoria as if you were a horny cadet who was making time with Ashley Judd. Something like that could work for sure. Sex should be downplayed if anything. Yes these characters have sex lives and they don't dwell on them or get caught up in petty drama, they spend their intimate time with whomever they choose and no one feels the need to get upset about it. So for R-rated Trek I vote no because it would feel too forced and artificial. Look, Captain Kirk just told the belligerent aliens to fuck off! And now Spock and Uhura are getting it on in a shuttle and we can see a nipple! Some dude just got sawed in half by a phaser set to slice! Some crewmember is doing space drugs that resemble 21st century drugs! Does anyone feel that Trek is truly lacking for not having those things?
Similar threads
