Link or get out.
It seems Trek still isn't ready to grow up and still wants to be suitable for kiddies.
$161,634,019
Cue the big sad face:
WHAT WENT WRONG?!?!?
Should there have been more sex and violence?
- Thread starter MadBaggins
- Start date
$161,634,019
Cue the big sad face:
WHAT WENT WRONG?!?!?
TREK isn't making enough money, dammit. We need to go back in time and use Red Matter to create a black hole sucking the only negative reviews into oblivion!
Wait, if we had a black hole sucking, then that would take care of more sex!
No, no and no again.
There are already too much sex and pointless violence in many movies.
What about coming up with a good story and likeable characters? That's what I want to see in a movie.
Sometimes I think there's too much pointless action too. I mean, look at a movie like "ConAir". I remember when I watched it the first time. Good and exciting-until the final ten minutes of the movie when half of Las Vegas was destroyed in that car-hunt with the fire-brigade truck. Talk about boring! It was like, "there goes another house, "yawn". "Wake me up when the movie is over."
Compare that to one of the best horror movies I've seen: "Alien 1"
Not much action and the monster only shows up at the end of the movie. But we had this creeping, spooky feeling all the time when we didn't know what was killing the crewmembers and who would be the next victim plus the internal tensions between the crewmembers as well. A masterpiece without sex, violence and silly action effects.
There are already too much sex and pointless violence in many movies.
What about coming up with a good story and likeable characters? That's what I want to see in a movie.
Sometimes I think there's too much pointless action too. I mean, look at a movie like "ConAir". I remember when I watched it the first time. Good and exciting-until the final ten minutes of the movie when half of Las Vegas was destroyed in that car-hunt with the fire-brigade truck. Talk about boring! It was like, "there goes another house, "yawn". "Wake me up when the movie is over."
Compare that to one of the best horror movies I've seen: "Alien 1"
Not much action and the monster only shows up at the end of the movie. But we had this creeping, spooky feeling all the time when we didn't know what was killing the crewmembers and who would be the next victim plus the internal tensions between the crewmembers as well. A masterpiece without sex, violence and silly action effects.
content and rating
Most Star Trek feature films were rated PG by the M.P.A.A. except
Star Trek: The Motion Picture which was rated G and then PG for the Director's Cut in 2002.
Star Trek: First Contact
Rated PG-13 for some sci-fi adventure violence.
Star Trek: Insurrection
Rated PG for sci-fi action violence, mild language and sensuality.
Star Trek: Nemesis
Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and peril and a scene of sexual content.
Enterprise TV series (2001-2005) had a Television content rating
USA:TV-PG
Star Trek (2009)
Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content
Hollywood edits a film to try to receive a specific rating as they are targeting certain audiences. If they wanted PG rating it would not be as much action. period.
The Trek film franchise went from 1996 with PG-13 rating back to a PG rating for Insurrection in 1998 and back to PG-13 for Nemesis. Maybe Paramount feels it wants the teen market more and not so family-friendly anymore with this franchise.
The recent Terminator: Salvation receiving a PG-13 rating as well as Transformers (2007) receiving a PG-13 rating and being big action films is pretty ridiculous. They should have both been rated R.
by the way Does anyone have a recorded "Enterprise" broadcast episode from 2001-2005 that includes a broadcast rating bug ?
Were they accompanied by any of the sub-ratings?
Most Star Trek feature films were rated PG by the M.P.A.A. except
Star Trek: The Motion Picture which was rated G and then PG for the Director's Cut in 2002.
Star Trek: First Contact
Rated PG-13 for some sci-fi adventure violence.
Star Trek: Insurrection
Rated PG for sci-fi action violence, mild language and sensuality.
Star Trek: Nemesis
Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and peril and a scene of sexual content.
Enterprise TV series (2001-2005) had a Television content rating
USA:TV-PG
Star Trek (2009)
Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content
Hollywood edits a film to try to receive a specific rating as they are targeting certain audiences. If they wanted PG rating it would not be as much action. period.
The Trek film franchise went from 1996 with PG-13 rating back to a PG rating for Insurrection in 1998 and back to PG-13 for Nemesis. Maybe Paramount feels it wants the teen market more and not so family-friendly anymore with this franchise.
The recent Terminator: Salvation receiving a PG-13 rating as well as Transformers (2007) receiving a PG-13 rating and being big action films is pretty ridiculous. They should have both been rated R.
by the way Does anyone have a recorded "Enterprise" broadcast episode from 2001-2005 that includes a broadcast rating bug ?
Were they accompanied by any of the sub-ratings?
The fact remains that for all the talk of his not being "your father's" Star Trek there was NOTHING in this movie you wouldn't be able to see in previous Star Treks other than the shaky camera which was stolen from BSG and the lens flare which was stolen from Transformers. I thought it was going to be edgier. Even the swearing wasn't anything we haven't heard before. Would it have killed them to have Kirk say "fucking Romulans!"at some point?
I, for one, was looking forward to less sex but a f**kload of violence. Maybe that old guy from Saw coulda shown up at the end and mumbled something witty like "Trek over!" and start slaughtering people left and right.
Yes. remember, they were advertising this thing on nick with specialized kiddie commercials. At the massive Times Square Toys R Us they have a special display location just for the Star Trek toys. They want the 6 to 13 market despite the fact that the movie is PG-13. And lets face it, PG-13 is just the new PG
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
Lol!
Anyways, to the larger it is kind of funny, that with all the "its not your father's star trek" talk... it actually DID feel like Star Trek. It was basically a "star trek movie" with better effects and a faster pace. BUt it still felt very "star trek".
All the build up to this movie said "this ain't yer stinking father's Star Trek" and that it would be the most edgy, racy COOL Star Trek yet. There was suggestion that there would be a LOT more sex and violence then before, but what did we get?
Kirk didn't even have sex! Yes, he got to rub up against that HOT curvy orion girl (and congrats on JJ for casting a "larger woman" in his movie!) but then the lights came on they were both in their underwear! Maybe there's some weird sexual fetish in the future where people have sex still wearing their underwear but I doubt it. This scene could have been so much more. At the VERY LEAST we should have seen the orion's sexy naked breasts on screen. That would have shown that it isn't your father's Star Trek!!
Also when Uhura came in she could have stroked the orion's arm in a sensual way while Kirk watched.
Speaking of Uhura, we should have seen A LOT more of her and Spock. Where was the passion? All we saw was that weird bit on the transporter pad where we hardly even saw what they were doing to each other as the camera was on Kirk's reaction! There should ahve been a sex scene between Spock and Uhura where they talked about Pon Farr and human sex and stuff and that could have given heir relationship more depth as well as being sexy. I think one must have been recorded and cut actually and that's why them being together seem so sudden so hopefully it'll be on the DVD.
As far violence, it was just like tv! Hardly any blood, just lots of punches and phasers and stuff. Six billion Vulcans APPARENTLY died in agonry but we didn't even see one of them! We didn't even see Amanda's body broken on the rock's far below after Chekov fucked up and let her die! Nero's death was disappointing too, we should have seen a close-up of his face as the ship burned and possibly his skin melting.
It seems Trek still isn't ready to grow up and still wants to be suitable for kiddies.
You have my vote to direct Star Trek XII: Bigger Better Sexier
I see the point of a more "adult" visual, like Batman Begins/Dark Night was a night and day different with even Tim Burton's version for example. But we have yet to see any sci-fi or space opera using this. It could be very dangerous to impose this to something like Trek without any point of reference. But I'm certainly not opposed to seeing a good sci-fi like that. Just not Trek.
Now thats a knee jerk reaction, and an attitude that demonstrates that Trek still has ground to cut on its morale crusade.
Trek doesn't need to titillate, but it does need to normalise sex and sensuality after the 15 years of stale crusty immature asexual eunuchs in space that was the TNG era.
Whats the problem with sex anyway? Is it wrong? Is it dirty or evil? Should we hide it from our children so they can grow up with insecurites, misconceptions and phobias? No. Star Trek somehow developed a Victorian attitude toward the subject and its time it was dropped, just like any cutting edge intellectual social commentary should.
Sex needs the racism treatment, its a taboo to be challenged. With all the intellectual moralising that goes on round here I would have thought the trekkies would embrace it. Or is all that open mindedness we keep hearing just bullshit?
How is seeing Gaila with her shirt off open minded? Or more blood, or sexual activity that is shown rather than implied?
I want my Trek to do well and go boldly into more movies and more tv shows. If a few lose interest along the way because there is not enough booty and blood, so be it. It doesn't compare to losing the 6 to 13 year old audience, the future fandom.
... Six billion Vulcans APPARENTLY died in agonry but we didn't even see one of them!
, Paramount wants to sell it, do you think they will endanger 12+ rating? Why I have this feeling this entire movie is like a yogurt bought in tesco. Made and mixed according to specs, identical with every single one I've eaten before.
I won't argue on the violence. The body count and spillages need to matter and retain their effectiveness. Violence is repugnant and needs to be portrayed as such. Sex and nudity are not repugnant, why are the two ever discussed together?
Why should we accept graphic violence and its effects, bullet wounds, squirting blood etc without a flinch, but a pair of bare tits and everyone sqirms? Utter madness.
So do I, but why does nudity and sex have to be distasteful or low brow? It doesn't have to become porn to portray sex.
What about rock and roll? There is no where near enough rock and roll in any Trek incarnation
There are however quite a few cats.
Can't have everything I guess..
Similar threads
