Star Trek rated R

[Mallus]

Would a Tarantino Star Trek film be all that different from the sort of auteur franchise works we're already seeing? For example, Logan, which features not only graphic, gory renditions of Wolverine fighting with his claws, but an F-bombing 90 year-old Charles suffering from dementia.

This is a, ahem, singular take on the Marvel universe we haven't seen before (maybe kinda in the old "Ruins" miniseries) and a damn fine film.

Or FX's Legion, which isn't as graphic, but is also much stranger, as someone cleverer than me put it, "Wes Anderson and Stanley Kubrick present the X-Men". Or NBC's art-house rendition of Hannibal Lector, courtesy of Bryan Fuller.

I'm really excited by the idea that serious artists, with varied skill sets and personal visions, are getting the chance to work on the genre franchises I love. To breath a new kind of life into them. We're already long into the era of competent (and expensive) genre media. Let's see some risks get taken.

Obviously, the result of some of this will be absolutely awful. But when it works...

 

[Ryujin]

Some of the Wolverine comics were actually pretty bloody. Severed body parts, etc.. For that reason "Logan" wasn't all that different, except that they took advantage of the R rating to up the language.

 

[Mallus]

Some of the Wolverine comics were actually pretty bloody. Severed body parts, etc.. For that reason "Logan" wasn't all that different, except that they took advantage of the R rating to up the language.

True, but Logan was far and away the most graphically violent X-Men movie, and I think the difference in medium makes a, well, a difference. Seeing actors embody that violence is just more visceral than seeing words and static images on a page. It hits harder. For me, anyway.

In the same way that while tragedy is par of the course for the X-comics, seeing Patrick Stewart (and Jackman, for that matter) act the hell of those roles was more affecting than any experience I had w/the comics.

 

[Ryujin]

True, but Logan was far and away the most graphically violent X-Men movie, and I think the difference in medium makes a, well, a difference. Seeing actors embody that violence is just more visceral than seeing words and static images on a page. It hits harder. For me, anyway.

In the same way that while tragedy is par of the course for the X-comics, seeing Patrick Stewart (and Jackman, for that matter) act the hell of those roles was more affecting than any experience I had w/the comics.

That sounds like a normal change in perception I would expect any time the presentation medium changes. Cartoon violence is, no matter how grisly, still only cartoon violence.

 

[CapnZapp]

Star Trek rated R

I realize this thread was started because of the Tarantino news, but if I use the thread as its actual topic indicates, I gotta say, "Star Trek rated R" sounds excellent.

Just look at The Orville. Take a pinch of the slovenly imperfect human crew there.

Then look at USS Callister (the recent Black Mirror ep) for a hilarious send-up of TOS, complete with jokes about miniskirts and genitalia.

As for the actual "mature" Star Trek series (that's Discovery) I'm much less enthused about that one. Sure it's "dark" and "edgy" but only in a superhero sense. Not in any actual dark or edgy sense. And who wants dark and edgy anyway?!?! F*ck Tarantino.

Star Trek should be optimistic and light. Just because it's rated R doesn't mean it can't be optimistic and light.

Instead, I give you... Barbarella!

Just think about it. Barbarella is "the sixties" But it isn't censored. And most importantly, it's optimistic and light.

Just the way I want my Star Trek.