Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by trek_futurist, Dec 14, 2011.
Name the number of gay characters that Modern Trek had during a time when the awareness and acceptance of gay people was at an all-time high and were regularly being shown on TV? Here's the answer: 0.
TNG had two black actors in a cast of nine and had probably the most blatantly rascist episode of any TV show in the 80's/90's, Code of Honor.
They didn't want a woman as second in command. More evidence of intolerance for minorities.
Well, I'm convinced.
Dude.... women aren't minorities.
For the hundredth fucking time, they didn't have a problem with a woman in that spot they simply hated that Gene cast his mistress. Gene didn't have the balls to tell his mistress she was getting the axe because she was a shitty actress. So he made up the nonsense about the executives not wanting a woman there.
Where do you people get this non-sense?
Gene Roddenberry himself cited many of these cases of network prejudice. Was he lying? And who are you to say he wasn't?
Google is your friend. Or you could read Inside Star Trek which was co-written by the Desilu executive (Herb Solow) in charge of the production of Star Trek, it's pretty well documented.
How do you know the writer of that book is not, as you describe it, 'spinning'?
Basically it's a matter of hearsay and who you choose to trust. I see no reason for Roddenberry to lie. He has every reason to keep the network execs on his side, and lying would not achieve this.
Who's to say GR wasn't spinning? I see no reason for the author of the book to lie.
Herb Solow had nothing to gain from lying and was quite complimentary on Roddenberry's skills as a producer and he's not the first to say Roddenberry was a slimey fucker.
Just ask D.C. Fontana or David Gerrold what they think of Roddenberry...
Or Alexander Courage. Or Robert Justman.
Unbearable to people with short attention spans who need an explosion every 10 minutes to maintain interest.
Star trek, the motion picture is an amazing film with a fairly large following (see IMDB).
Just because those who liked this film do not chime in here, does not mean they don't exist.
And a lot of people hate st 2009. Again, look at reviews all over the internet, youtube videos and comments, to see that the number of people who hate this film is underreported.
Or ask the woman Roddenberry was married to at the time he was banging both Majel Barrett and Nichelle Nichols.
There was a hell of a lot of smoke around this guy...
Says the person who thinks that Nemesis determines whether someone is a real Trek fan or not. That movie was nothing but explosions and pointless battles. Case in point; that ridiculous dune buggy chase scene.
And? But? So? Therefore? The fact that lots of people likes or dislikes a movie proves nothing. In fact, lots of people don't like all of the Trek movies or any of the series either. Following the assumption that the number of people who dislike something is proportional to whether or not it's any good, Star Trek, in its entirety, is a steam pile of crap.
I know of at least one person who frequents these boards that cites The Motion Picture and Star Trek 2009 as his two favorite Trek films.
Uhura was the third lead. More important than McCoy in that story. She had more to do that film than the entire run of TOS and Six movies. No other show or movie has has a black woman that important and prominent in the cast or story. Not sure why you would call her a "whore". She was shown to be a intelligent, forceful and highly competent officer. Let me guess, her being in a relationship Spock translates to "whore" in your worldview.
Sulu's role was pretty much what is always is. He drives the ship Plus, he got a nice fight scene with the Romulans.
Read my follow up comments on it to see that I understood it better than you, apparently.
Trek_futurist has lost me. He idolizes Roddenberry, yet calls Uhura in the new film a whore. Talk about a double standard.
I keep forgetting that hollywoods idea of 'lead' for women is them acting all bitchy and menstrual while being swooning with affection for some guy. So in that sense you are right.
But seriously, what am I missing here? I don't see any depth at all in these characters. You people have to be making this stuff up, there is nothing involved in these characters, nothing developmentally viable (kirk is the same at the end of the film as in the beginning). Nothing to make me care whether they live or die.
Another thing is, if these are alternate dimension versions of all the main characters who exist in their own time line, separate from the real prime universe characters, why care about them at all? What's at stake? What's the point? It's really stupid.
Separate names with a comma.