Phase II: Blood and Fire Part 1 Released!! (SPOILERS)

[Captain Robert April]

If it was a pic like that second one, oh, yes I would. And anyone challenging the appropriateness and relevance of posting such a pic would be right in doing so.

Admit it, you didn't do it for "emphasis", you did it for shock value and to stick it in the faces of the straights.

And, like it or not, rightly or wrongly, it's stunts like that that tend to result in backlashes like Amendment 2 here in Colorado and Prop 8 in California.

Put simply, if you want to be treated in a civilized manner, then act in a civilized manner. And posting naked pictures in a public forum, with an attitude of "Suck on this, breeder!" doesn't quite cut it.

 

[ST-One]

If it was a pic like that second one, oh, yes I would.

Don't kid yourself.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Admit it, you didn't do it for "emphasis", you did it for shock value and to stick it in the faces of the straights.

Speak for yourself. It didn't bother me a bit.

 

[number6]

If it was a pic like that second one, oh, yes I would.

Don't kid yourself.

There is nothing offensive about that picture at all.

No one would bat an eyelash if it were a picture of Soldana, or Ryan or any other attractive Trek female.

I just don't think Trek fans are as ready for openly gay characters in Trek as they would like to think.

That being said..

I thought the smooching scene was a little overdone. We never saw smooching like that in any series between a hetero couple. It just seemed a tad out of place and over the top, especially for Star Trek.

I won't totally buy into Gerrold's purpose of that scene once I have seen part II. I trust his statement about that scene being in there for a reason.


I do applaud the Phase II team and David Gerrold for doing something Star Trek has never done and doing it so thoughfully. I look forward to seeing the rest of this story.

 

[ST-One]

If it was a pic like that second one, oh, yes I would. And anyone challenging the appropriateness and relevance of posting such a pic would be right in doing so.

Admit it, you didn't do it for "emphasis", you did it for shock value and to stick it in the faces of the straights.

Only if you consider two attractive people of the same sex in a picture 'shocking'.

And, like it or not, rightly or wrongly, it's stunts like that that tend to result in backlashes like Amendment 2 here in Colorado and Prop 8 in California.

Put simply, if you want to be treated in a civilized manner, then act in a civilized manner. And posting naked pictures in a public forum, with an attitude of "Suck on this, breeder!" doesn't quite cut it.

This particular picture is not unlike the scree-shot from the Star Trek-trailer were we see Chris Pine as Kirk ontop of the Orion woman. I haven't seen anyone call that un-'civilized'.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If it was a pic like that second one, oh, yes I would.

Don't kid yourself.

There is nothing offensive about that picture at all.

Exactly so. Unless, of course, one is intent on preserving the currently prevailing special rights for heterosexuals.

 

[number6]

This particular picture is not unlike the scree-shot from the Star Trek-trailer were we see Chris Pine as Kirk ontop of the Orion woman. I haven't seen anyone call that un-'civilized'.

You haven't been visiting the Trek XI threads around here much, have you?



Yes. Trek "fans" have a problem with young Kirk snogging space babes.

 

[ST-One]

This particular picture is not unlike the scree-shot from the Star Trek-trailer were we see Chris Pine as Kirk ontop of the Orion woman. I haven't seen anyone call that un-'civilized'.

You haven't been visiting the Trek XI threads around here much, have you?



Yes. Trek "fans" have a problem with young Kirk snogging space babes.

'Small creatures. Attacking what they don't understand'?

 

[number6]

This particular picture is not unlike the scree-shot from the Star Trek-trailer were we see Chris Pine as Kirk ontop of the Orion woman. I haven't seen anyone call that un-'civilized'.

You haven't been visiting the Trek XI threads around here much, have you?



Yes. Trek "fans" have a problem with young Kirk snogging space babes.

'Small creatures. Attacking what they don't understand'?

We reach. Yea, Brother.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This particular picture is not unlike the scree-shot from the Star Trek-trailer were we see Chris Pine as Kirk ontop of the Orion woman. I haven't seen anyone call that un-'civilized'.

You haven't been visiting the Trek XI threads around here much, have you?



Yes. Trek "fans" have a problem with young Kirk snogging space babes.

Overt sexuality in "Star Trek" is something that always provokes some anxiety in fandom. Anything more direct than Kirk pulling on his boot - say, Uhura pulling off her top - is problematic for some folks. So to be fair not everyone who's objecting to some of the images and discussion in this topic are necessarily doing so just because of the homosexuality involved - they are complaining enough about the assumed sexual content of the new "Star Trek" that Chris Pine, of all folks, felt the need to encourage everyone to calm down a bit - here.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

^Which is funny because sexy and TOS go hand-in-hand. It was a sexy-adult drama for its day with Thesis' Titillation Theory of costuming and Roddenberry's insistence on putting in bodacious babes. TOS in its 60s way is the NYPD Blue of that era, pushing the boundaries of network censorship in the skin department. TOS is hardly prudish.

Now the treatment of sexuality in ModTrek, especially ENT, is a little juvenile at times with the skintight catsuits and the bio-gel rub downs.

 

[Praetor]

This particular picture is not unlike the scree-shot from the Star Trek-trailer were we see Chris Pine as Kirk ontop of the Orion woman. I haven't seen anyone call that un-'civilized'.

You haven't been visiting the Trek XI threads around here much, have you?



Yes. Trek "fans" have a problem with young Kirk snogging space babes.

Overt sexuality in "Star Trek" is something that always provokes some anxiety in fandom. Anything more direct than Kirk pulling on his boot - say, Uhura pulling off her top - is problematic for some folks. So to be fair not everyone who's objecting to some of the images and discussion in this topic are necessarily doing so just because of the homosexuality involved - they are complaining enough about the assumed sexual content of the new "Star Trek" that Chris Pine, of all folks, felt the need to encourage everyone to calm down a bit - here.

I have been following this thread with interest but haven't chimed in until now. I think people who fear sexuality in Trek probably fall in two camps - (1) those who object for various moral reasons, and (2) those who fear that the sex is just being substituted for meaningful content to get ratings. I can truly understand both perspectives.

Being a gay male, homosexuality in Trek obviously doesn't bother me. Level of content sometimes makes me uncomfortable, but only from a standpoint of 'what would I have thought watching TNG when I was growing up?' I want kids to be able to watch like I did, so keeping it, for lack of a better word, 'decent' is a small concern.

However, generally I only find myself worried about sex substituted for content, and as others have said, being handled in an immature way. For example - Seven of Nine. Most fans argue that she was there only for the T&A factor, but if you actually examine her character there is an interesting premise there. But would she have gotten so much screen time if she wasn't in a tight catsuit?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^Which is funny because sexy and TOS go hand-in-hand. It was a sexy-adult drama for its day with Thesis' Titillation Theory of costuming and Roddenberry's insistence on putting in bodacious babes. TOS in its 60s way is the NYPD Blue of that era, pushing the boundaries of network censorship in the skin department. TOS is hardly prudish.

Eh, sort of. There was more interesting stuff on network TV, in that regard, than Trek even in those days.

The TOS idea of "sexy" was so indirect that within only a few years it would appear dated, prudish and silly to most folks. Some Trek fans, however, are simply not comfortable with anything more overt and direct than mildy suggestive fare from four decades ago.

That makes the current world uncomfortable for some of them.

Notably, very few of the folks whom Captain Robert April characterizes as "straights" that ST-One was supposedly trying to provoke are at all concerned by the posts in question. Just April and one or two others.

I have been following this thread with interest but haven't chimed in until now. I think people who fear sexuality in Trek probably fall in two camps - (1) those who object for various moral reasons, and (2) those who fear that the sex is just being substituted for meaningful content to get ratings.

No, there's a third "camp" that's actually more pervasive and obvious than the two you define: the folks who are just plain embarrassed and uncomfortable with direct expressions of sexuality in entertainment. It's as reflexive as six year olds covering their eyes during the "kissing scenes" in a movie, and has nothing to do with concerns with either morality or quality. And it's this third group that we're actually seeing represented here.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

^Which is funny because sexy and TOS go hand-in-hand. It was a sexy-adult drama for its day with Thesis' Titillation Theory of costuming and Roddenberry's insistence on putting in bodacious babes. TOS in its 60s way is the NYPD Blue of that era, pushing the boundaries of network censorship in the skin department. TOS is hardly prudish.

Eh, sort of. There was more interesting stuff on network TV, in that regard, than Trek even in those days.

The TOS idea of "sexy" was so indirect that within only a few years it would appear dated, prudish and silly to most folks. Some Trek fans, however, are simply not comfortable with anything more overt and direct than mildy suggestive fare from four decades ago.

That makes the current world uncomfortable for some of them.

Well, it was sexy for my four-year-old eyes in the early 80s. But tame to my 32-year-old eyes.

Notably, very few of the folks whom Captain Robert April characterizes as "straights" that ST-One was supposedly trying to provoke are at all concerned by the posts in question. Just April and one or two others.

Fo'sho.

 

[Captain Robert April]

So, to hell with us, hm?

 

[number6]

So, to hell with us, hm?

You're the one overreacting.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So, to hell with us, hm?

Nope. It's just that you don't get to dictate tastes or behavior by claiming to speak on behalf of some nebulous large group of people. What may or may not be offensive to heterosexuals as a group, for example, is just not something you're qualified to assert. There is not, in fact, any specific reason to think that your life experience lends you any useful insight on the matter at all except as it pertains to yourself and the limited number of like-minded people that you know well.

The immediate evidence of those participating in this topic indicates that the folks you maintain would be provoked or offended by the material in question are for the most part not bothered at all.

Now, as far as the question of telling other people how they should and should not behave in order to avoid alarming the more narrowminded members of the majority which they are presumed to be petitioning for their basic rights - well yeah, to hell with what the narrowminded ones think.

I assert that only on my own behalf, of course.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Let me put it this way.

Do you want to have an honest discussion of the issues raised by this episode, open to all sides, so that all sides can learn something, or just hang out the "Breeders need not contribute" sign and let the flames rise high into the night?

 

[number6]

Let me put it this way.

Do you want to have an honest discussion of the issues raised by this episode, open to all sides, so that all sides can learn something, or just hang out the "Breeders need not contribute" sign and let the flames rise high into the night?

I don't think anyone is saying that. If you feel that's what's being said to you, then you need to check yourself.

You brought up your points and people disagree and some even think you're wrong. Maybe you should try to learn something from the experience instead of assuming that everyone else needs to bend to your view of life.

That wouldn't be much of an "honest discussion" for the rest of us here, now would it?

 

[Captain Robert April]

I don't recall any of my points actually being countered, only my reaction to an inappropriate picture being posted on a public board by a poster that seems to only post on these boards for the express purpose of yanking chains.

Wanna debate my points? Great, have at it.

Wanna post pics of naked porn stars? Take it somewhere else.