Swearing in Star Trek - Steve Shives
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Just to clarify a few points.
1) I said "warts and all," not war. Not the same thing.
I never said I want wars to continue. Indeed, my point was that wars and poverty are Bad, but profanity is not. It's morally neutral, neither good nor bad.2) As for the Shakespeare thing, fair enough. Honestly, that wasn't directed at you personally but at a general attitude, which often surfaces whenever this issue comes up, that somehow swearing isn't classy or highbrow enough for STAR TREK's optimistic future, as though social progress is somehow synonymous with more "refined" tastes and manners, which always kinda strikes me as vaguely elitist. (Again, not directed at you personally.)
3) Changes in language. I already addressed that at length in an earlier post, but briefly: STAR TREK dialogue has never been written in future dialect; it's always been written in contemporary lingo for the benefit of contemporary audiences. So why should profanity be treated any differently?
Bottom line: profanity is just another tool in a writer's toolbox, just another color in the crayon box, to be used or not used when applicable. And there's certainly no reason why humanity would need or want to "evolve" beyond it. IMO.
Last edited:
You speak Cetacean?
I speak whale-sh.
To be fair, the Nokia 3310 is the most durable piece of equipment ever invented.
If any brand could still be going then it makes sense - fully imagine Kirk using his Nokia 33310 for booty calls
Last edited:
That's my feeling as well. I love the idea, and continue to have optimism about humanity and their capacity to learn and grow. But, I do not think use of profanity indicates a lack of evolution nor a question of an individual's morality.
Harold Livingston, the sole credited screenwriter, would like a word.
For most of my life, trek has been kid freindly. As in myself watching VHS of old trek at 5 and Tng at 7-8 ish and parents were just fine with it.
Trek doesn't need to be violent, gorish or overly profane to get its point across. Trek needs to be accessible to all ages, that means family freindly. We as adults might not care, but for parents who want to protect there kids, the new shows use of profanity, sex, gore means that it's not safe for kids, and if I was a parent wouldn't let under 10 watch it for that reason.
Basically it doesn't need it. And including it limits the audience.
Trek doesn't need to be violent, gorish or overly profane to get its point across. Trek needs to be accessible to all ages, that means family freindly. We as adults might not care, but for parents who want to protect there kids, the new shows use of profanity, sex, gore means that it's not safe for kids, and if I was a parent wouldn't let under 10 watch it for that reason.
Basically it doesn't need it. And including it limits the audience.
So the transporter accident in TMP?
McCoy's and Stiles' casual racism?
Most of TWOK (rated a 15 in the UK)
Klingon bastards?
Picard getting stabbed through the heart?
The soldier's execution in Farpoint?
These are just a handful of examples that come to mind that could/would be deemed not for children.
Trek has always been violent (when it looked like stage violence vs more realistic is of course a point where it becomes less "kid friendly"), it has regularly had gore (detail is greater now due to budgets and the advancement in the technology).
I'm not sure how much more graphic the sex is now then it was (I can't remember Burnham getting her tits out whilst Lorca struts around the bridge hanging dong for example) but certainly the old shows weren't shy of including sexual references and certainly the level of innuendo and implication would make it unsuitable for the youngest of children.
I would go as far as to suggest that, in reality, Trek has never been aimed at anyone younger than early teens (I think most videos/dvds of it were rated 12 over here), especially if we are to treat it as being a more philosophical show as opposed to a fun western style romp through space that it was initially designed as.
The context is that she's the representative of the current Starfleet; a cipher. As an individual, there's not really a character to disservice.
Up to that point we've followed Picard as a civilian until he decides to go to Starfleet, which he's recently thrown under the bus on live TV. We get the sweeping establishing shot of the Golden Gate bridge, Goldsmith on the soundtrack, glorious sunny weather and a warm fuzzy feeling as we return to the familiar. This is Starfleet. This is Star Trek; we're home.
Then the rug gets pulled from under us. Picard is met with an unexpected level of vitriol and disrespect that deliberately shocks and offends the viewer and makes us realise we're not in Kansas anymore. Picard is on his own.
Not saying it's sesame streat or Barney. And yes you have a red shirt dying most episides.
Another example is stargate, it's a fun mostly family show, but there was still deaths, light language , etc.
But both went outof there way to make it family freindly . hell my freinds 2 year old and 8 year old watch mandalorian .. Egg eating and all.
Family freindly doesn't mean no language, violence, etc. Just more implied, off screen, watered down etc. to make it acceptable.
They can make the current shows a bit more family freindly without losing anything from the story.
I think where we disagree here is our definition of what is family friendly.
For me, I remember seeing Tapestry (first episode I ever watched I believe) and being traumatised by seeing a knife sticking through Picard's chest (admittedly I was only 4 or 5).
I don't believe, personally, that much of Trek was every family friendly (in terms of appropriate for at least anyone under 10) but this is where it is purely subjective.
I agree that current Trek is less family friendly than it used to be, but some of it certainly is a reflection of changes in what society deems acceptable. I still wouldn't show certain bits of Trek to kids though.
Weirdly, I remember SG1 being less graphic than 90s Trek - but I haven't watched it through for a while so I could be wrong!
I don't think all Trek needs to be family friendly. Frankly, I was more disturbed by Trek at times than other shows I watched.
Well I remember remmicks head going explody and a giant slug out his chest with a burnt husk of a headless body afterwards.. Was a bit much for my 8 year old brain.. I agree. 
The very first episode broadcast by TOS had crewmen shrieking in pain when a predatory salt-sucking humanoid killed them by attaching salt-absorbing suction cups to their faces. Trek is only as family friendly as we view it to be.
Granted, a lot of us got hooked on Trek as kids, and "family-friendly" means different things to different folks, but, right from the beginning, STAR TREK was always meant to be more "adult" than, say, LOST IN SPACE or CAPTAIN VIDEO or whatever.
As I like to remind people, the very first Star Trek pilot, "The Cage," is about a voyeuristic aliens trying to force a depressed starship captain into mating in captivity, complete with references to "strong female drives," a sly dig at religion ("a myth you learned as a child"), and a brutal ogre being violently impaled on a huge spear. It was not meant to be kid stuff, even if us 1960s kids loved it regardless.
As I like to remind people, the very first Star Trek pilot, "The Cage," is about a voyeuristic aliens trying to force a depressed starship captain into mating in captivity, complete with references to "strong female drives," a sly dig at religion ("a myth you learned as a child"), and a brutal ogre being violently impaled on a huge spear. It was not meant to be kid stuff, even if us 1960s kids loved it regardless.
Even the second TOS pilot had Captain Kirk being forced to kill his best friend because he'd mutated into a being with near-deity-like powers and killed at least one member of his crew. The episode ends with a brutal fistfight that concludes with Kirk crushing his friend underneath a huge rock that falls on top of him inside a freshly-dug grave.
Yeah, I never understood the "family friendly" idea of Star Trek. Certainly my parents were careful of what I watched when I was younger and Star Trek did not always pass muster in that regard. TNG was out after Conspiracy, and TUC was not allowed until I was 11 or 12.
Similar threads
