‘Star Trek’, Swear Words and TV Characters’ Changing Mores

This image released by Paramount+ shows Patrick Stewart as Picard, left, and Ed Speleers as Jack Crusher in the "No Win Scenario" episode of "Star Trek: Picard." (Trae Patton/Paramount+ via AP)
This image released by Paramount+ shows Patrick Stewart as Picard, left, and Ed Speleers as Jack Crusher in the "No Win Scenario" episode of "Star Trek: Picard." (Trae Patton/Paramount+ via AP)
TT

‘Star Trek’, Swear Words and TV Characters’ Changing Mores

This image released by Paramount+ shows Patrick Stewart as Picard, left, and Ed Speleers as Jack Crusher in the "No Win Scenario" episode of "Star Trek: Picard." (Trae Patton/Paramount+ via AP)
This image released by Paramount+ shows Patrick Stewart as Picard, left, and Ed Speleers as Jack Crusher in the "No Win Scenario" episode of "Star Trek: Picard." (Trae Patton/Paramount+ via AP)

For nearly four decades, Jean-Luc Picard of “Star Trek” has largely been presented as genteel, erudite and — at times — quite buttoned up. Yes, he loses his temper. Yes, he was reckless as a callow cadet many years ago. Yes, he occasionally gets his hands dirty or falls apart.

But the Enterprise captain-turned-admiral stepped into a different place in last week’s episode of the streaming drama “Star Trek: Picard.” Now, he’s someone who — to the shock of some and the delight of others — has uttered a profanity that never would have come from his mouth in the 1990s: “Ten f—-ing grueling hours,” Patrick Stewart's character says at one point during an intense conversation in which he expects everyone will die shortly.

The whole thing was in keeping with the more complex, nuanced aesthetic of this decade’s “Star Trek” installments. And the online conversation that ensued illustrates the journey undertaken when a fictional character voyages from the strictures of network and syndicated television to high-end streaming TV, The Associated Press said.

“'Star Trek’ was G-rated when it first came out. 'The Next Generation’ was clean-cut and optimistic. What we’re seeing now with ‘Picard’ is a little bit more of the grit,” says Shilpa Davé, a media studies scholar at the University of Virginia and a longtime “Trek” fan.

Over the weekend, “Star Trek” Twitter reflected that tension.

“Totally out of character,” said one post, reflecting many others. Some complained that it cheapened the utopia that Gene Roddenberry envisioned, that humans wouldn’t be swearing like that four centuries from now, that someone as polished as Picard wouldn’t need such language.

“Part of Star Trek’s appeal is the articulate way characters speak. Resorting to gutter language feels like a step backward since Star Trek’s characters are meant to be better than this,” John Orquiola wrote for the website Screen Rant on Sunday.

The backlash to the backlash followed. Christopher Monfette, the Paramount+ show’s co-executive producer, wrote an extensive and persuasive thread about the moment and why he believed it worked.

“It’s easy to hear that elevated British tone escaping the mouth of a gentlemanly Shakespearean actor and assume some elevated intellectualism,” he said, while acknowledging: “Criticism of its use is fair even if it just strikes a personal nerve — or if you’ve equated 'Trek' with more broader, family-friendly storytelling. But regardless, cursing in the show is carefully debated & discussed in the room or on set. We don’t take it lightly.”

The showrunner for “ Star Trek: Picard ” this season, Terry Matalas, said the F-word from Picard wasn’t scripted but was a choice by Stewart in the moment. The result, Matalas said, was “so real.”

“Everything you do as artists, as writers and actors, even as editors, is authenticity. That’s the thing you want to feel,” he told Collider. “I was really torn because hearing that word come from your childhood hero, Captain Picard, it throws you. But wow, is it powerful.”

“Star Trek” has a long history of pushing boundaries, linguistic and otherwise.

“Let’s get the hell out of here,” Capt. James T. Kirk said on network TV in 1967, when that word was edgy. He’d just lost someone dear to him in the most trying of circumstances. Dr. McCoy, the ship’s irascible physician, would often say, “Dammit, Jim.” And in the larger realm, the original series delicately danced with NBC censors over everything from women’s costumes to racial, sexual and war references.

But the crossing of last week's linguistic frontier is an interesting case. It highlights the turbulence generated when a beloved character born during the “family-friendly” TV era evolves against the streaming landscape, where constraints are fewer and opportunities for unflinching authenticity greater.

"This isn't just a rethinking of a fictional world. This is the same actor and the same character in the same setting that we had before. And all these years, he has been speaking and behaving in a certain way," says Robert Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University.

Sometimes this transition unfolds erratically. Velma, a member of the Gen-X-era Saturday morning cartoon “Scooby Doo,” recently appeared in a more multicultural cartoon reboot on HBO Max that featured a high-school shower scene and overt sexual references. It has been roundly panned. Several years ago, when “Riverdale” premiered, the attempts to push Archie, Jughead, Betty and Veronica from the sunny world of comics into the darker realm of teen drama produced uneven, sometimes jarring results.

“Star Trek” is in a whole different universe, so to speak.

Roddenberry famously framed it as a utopian future where the main characters generally avoided conflict with each other, their society wasn't motivated by greed and humanity was seen as inexorably moving forward. Purists have criticized the recent years of what they call “new Trek” as a darker, more fragmented universe.

Nonsense, say many others: Both allegory and word usage evolve with the times. After all, it was only seven decades ago that Lucille Ball (and her character) was expecting a baby on “I Love Lucy” and the word “pregnant” couldn't be uttered on national television — except, oddly, in French.

And for years before and after that, Hollywood's production code prescribed the ways morality and amorality could be depicted in film, with strict regulation of everything from sexual innuendo to whether criminals were portrayed sympathetically to whether the good guys won. Hence the term “Hollywood ending," which remains with us today in many parts of life.

All of which raises the question: Could it also be the boundaries themselves that help create memorable film and television, rather than merely the breaking of them?

“Star Trek had a certain kind of sincerity — almost like 'the 23rd century will be a family-friendly kind of thing,'” Thompson says. “The question is, what happens when your characters outlive the media industry standards? How do you accommodate the fact that you’re no longer limited without completely betraying the world that you’ve created?”

In this case, Stewart has said he returned to the character because he was persuaded there were new stories to tell. Just as he had aged two decades since his last "Star Trek” appearance, so, too, had Picard — with all the evolution that went along with it.

The kind of evolution, perhaps, that might make a man facing his own end choose a word that still carries a lot of power — even in today's swearing, streaming world. When Jean-Luc Picard says that word, you can be absolutely sure he means it.



Avicii Documentary Director on Celebrating the Late, ‘Timeless’ DJ without Exploiting His Death

Avicii poses for a portrait in New York, Monday, Jan. 23, 2012. (AP)
Avicii poses for a portrait in New York, Monday, Jan. 23, 2012. (AP)
TT

Avicii Documentary Director on Celebrating the Late, ‘Timeless’ DJ without Exploiting His Death

Avicii poses for a portrait in New York, Monday, Jan. 23, 2012. (AP)
Avicii poses for a portrait in New York, Monday, Jan. 23, 2012. (AP)

Avicii, the groundbreaking Swedish DJ-producer, died six years ago. He was 28. It was a tragedy that reverberated around the world — much like his music, which brought unexpected genres and collaborators into his melodic EDM through forward-thinking, chart-topping hits like “Wake Me Up!” and “Hey Brother.”

On Dec. 31, two new movies, a short concert film captured at what became his final performance, “Avicii — My Last Show,” and a full-length documentary, “Avicii — I’m Tim," will premiere on Netflix. They work to celebrate the artist born Tim Bergling, capturing his early life, the songs that made him an idiosyncratic talent, his insatiable curiosity and hunger for reinvention, and the people he left behind.

Miraculously, Bergling himself narrates a lot of the film — pulled from archival interviews and some never before published.

Capturing Avicii's life and career was no easy feat, director Henrik Burman told The Associated Press. The project took half-a-decade, beginning before the pandemic and only about a year-and-half after Bergling's death. Burman's interviews were long and many. “To know people around Tim,” he says, was the only way “to know Tim.”

Burman discussed Avicii's life, career and legacy with The Associated Press. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

AP: How did you approach this project?

BURMAN: I would say from the beginning, the first thing I knew I wanted to do was find my story... the story that I wanted to tell about Tim. But the most important (aspect) was time. I wanted this to be a project with no time limits... I wanted it to be a slow process. And I wanted to have a lot of time for research. And the people close to Tim, I didn't want to force them into anything. I didn't want to push it. I wanted them to see and learn what I wanted to tell, you know, my story and my vision.

AP: The structure is compelling; it really focuses on Avicii's life and his biggest songs that shifted genre — you avoid casting his career as “it was the 2010s and EDM was massive.” There's a lot of research.

BURMAN: I had access to a lot of material... I was looking for clues all the time... I’ve watched so, so many hours of, you know, interviews with Tim just to see, “OK, he says this again. And it was like the eighth time that year. OK. That should be important.” ... It was kind of a puzzle and yeah, it was huge research work.

Sometimes, in the material that I had ... he was like, “If there’s a documentary, ever, about me, this should be in it.” ... There’s a story in the film, in the beginning, from (when) he is a kid. He tells a story to the interviewer. And he says, “When I was a kid, I wasn’t like a really nice person. For a few years, I was kind of bullying people. And I was around 6 or 7. And after a while I realized that people didn’t like me, so after a summer, I was thinking about this, and I decided, ‘I need to change... and see what happens.’ And then people liked me again.” And when he told that story, he was like, “That’s a really important story. That’s a story that needs to be in a documentary, if it’s ever a documentary about me, because that says so much about me as a person.”

I was trying to find clues and stories and listen and... early on, I was quite sure that I wanted to tell the story from Miami Ultra (Music Festival) and what happened there. That was kind of a key moment for me, and that was a huge key moment for Tim. But when I realized that this... needs to be the center of my story, at the midpoint for my story, I realized that I had something to hold on to.

AP: The childhood story reflects his interest in creative transformation, too. How do you aim to capture his spirit and not center his death?

BURMAN: That is hard. I have from the beginning... tried to explain my vision for this film... But I reached out to a lot of friends, and of course his family, and I got their blessing. When I got this kind of group of people that said “yes” to being in the film that I could start to ask more questions and have deeper conversations. But again, we needed time... I wanted to work gently, that was very important.

AP: And you have footage of Tim in the womb! It is very different than what could've very easily been an exploitative version of the film.

BURMAN: I wanted to make an intimate and personal story and not speculate... to find the right tone, you need time. And since we started work... one, one-and-a-half years after Tim passed, I just knew that we needed time. And, of course, people around Tim needed a lot of time.

AP: What is Avicii's legacy?

BURMAN: You can answer that question in so many ways. But if you’re talking about the music, and the music that he produced and wrote, he was so much ahead of his time, I would say. And you can hear the legacy of Avicii in the music today. You can hear it in the production in new music and hits from today. If you listen to the music — go back and listen to the music now that he released like 10 years ago, it sounds so fresh, modern, and I would say timeless.

AP: What do you hope viewers take away from this film?

BURMAN: Someone said to me that the film is so much about Tim, but at the same time, it’s so kind of universal. And I thought that was beautiful because life is not simple. There are no easy answers. And everything is complex and multilayered. So, that’s what I aim to contribute to Tim's story. And I also really hope that even the most hardcore fans get a new, fresh perspective of Tim as a person and Avicii as an artist.