The next Captain should named "Jack Harkness", played by John Barrowman. He should be an Omnisexual from the future and be willing to shag anything that has an eye to wink at him, be they human, male, female, Dalek, Cardassian, or robot.
The Next Captain
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
It'd be a change from too much USA on the bridge.I think that might be too much U.K. on one bridge.My opinion on the topic of the next captain is always in flux, btw: Now I'm thinking she should be played by Tasmin Archer.
Only if Dylan Moran plays the first officer and Bill Bailey the ship's Doctor. He has the beard and forehead for a Klingon.
I think that might be too much U.K. on one bridge.My opinion on the topic of the next captain is always in flux, btw: Now I'm thinking she should be played by Tasmin Archer.
Only if Dylan Moran plays the first officer and Bill Bailey the ship's Doctor. He has the beard and forehead for a Klingon.
Um - you do know I'm joking, right? Ever see the programme Black Books?
Never darken this thread gain.
You might have a point. Then again, considering that Trek was invented in the USA by an American...It'd be a change from too much USA on the bridge.
We don't get BBC4 in South Carolina, but I've just looked it up at Wikipedia, and I said Tasmin Archer, not Tamsin Greig.
Saquist
Commodore
Oppositely if there is a Gay Agenda then you are illuminati.
But the riots 2 years ago seem to say there is some sort of wide spread agenda however united or attenuated it is.
And I understand that need to identify with that.
But taking that risk wouldn't mean a Righteous Human call for equality like back in the day. Gays for all intents and purposes are free.
They must not be oppressed in a free society but you have to respect the negative stigma in a conservative society such as the US. I'm sure that wouldn't have a problem in Europe who claims to be sexually unrepresented but consider Trek's delicate position right now.
It's being revived.
Grant it...A Gay Captain make a splash in the Entertainment industry...I imagine lots of good press but will that translate to the ratings...
Brokeback Mountain made a mere...83 million domestic in it's entire run....19 weeks.... A very small minority of people watched this film and few more admit they've watched it despite it being all the buzz of top critics.
So the real question is (executive decisions) are you willing to risk sinking the franchise on the decision? That's a hard one because it could easily go either way.
Just.. like.. the.. captain!
Saquist
Commodore
I'm not sure I know how the respond to that...
I'm just sick of these fanfics with two men rolling in the bed like Odyssey and Phase II. I mean really is the best way to introduce homosexuality to flaunt in peoples face with an intimacy most men consider repulsive? It takes a diplomat to say "perhaps" less is more. Show two guys holding hands, a hug and embrace...show feelings...I think that needs to be done instead of the lust.
Why does it have to be OVERT?
I'm just sick of these fanfics with two men rolling in the bed like Odyssey and Phase II. I mean really is the best way to introduce homosexuality to flaunt in peoples face with an intimacy most men consider repulsive? It takes a diplomat to say "perhaps" less is more. Show two guys holding hands, a hug and embrace...show feelings...I think that needs to be done instead of the lust.
Why does it have to be OVERT?
I thought Enterprise had already done that?
We don't get BBC4 in South Carolina, but I've just looked it up at Wikipedia, and I said Tasmin Archer, not Tamsin Greig.
Oops, my bad!
Well, the trio from BB would still make a great central trio for a Trek starship!
Don´t get me wrong, but, please, keep the gay tematic and BB out of the movies. We already have so much of this in a lot of other movies. It won´t bring back the good times for Star Trek (and not for other movies too).
Just write a good sequence of histories. It´s all taht is needed.
Just write a good sequence of histories. It´s all taht is needed.
Last edited:
I can agree with this, but then, I'm not overly fond of excessive PDAs regardless of the homo- or hetero- sexuality involved. If I'd want to tell a guy and a girl to "get a room", that applies to a gay or lesbian couple, too - and when watching general TV, I want story and effects, not smut. Smut is what porn is for.
My question is this: what exactly does a gay captain add to the story besides being gay? Like I said before Star Trek has almost never handled romance well, now you want them to depict gay romantic adventures of the lead character?
I'm overweight, left-handed and blind in one eye... and I don't need to see any Star Trek character exhibiting these traits in order to enjoy it. I don't have this need to see someone like me on the screen. YMMV.
What does the captain being a woman add to the story besides being a woman?
Even dealing with something awkwardly is better than not dealing with it at all.
Because the moment it leaks that the character is gay, he's no longer the captain of the Starship Enterprise... he's the gay dude from Star Trek. And with that comes the pressure of portraying the character in that light. Then if you don't write him one way the claims will come that you're not accurately portraying a gay man... if you write him another way then it'll be too over the top.
No thank you.
You're missing the reality, Star Trek is the McDonald's of science fiction. It's sole purpose is to gather as large of audience as possible... you don't do that by offending people.
Star Trek is a sci-fi adventure. What I want is amazon women with big tits and long legs in short skirts hiding behind big damn action heroes with cool starships and big fucking laser guns. It's not social commentary... it's entertainment. I want my entertainment to entertain me, which means no overweight, left-handed, blind in one eye characters. YMMV.
How is that any different than being a woman or a black man? There will always be those who are unhappy with the manner in which a character adheres (or fails to adhere) to a stereotype. The point is to challenge the stereotype and portray a "real" person.
Ticking off a few outliers should not be a concern of the writer. Roddenberry certainly wasn't concerned.
Star Trek has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been about teaching a larger lesson. It has always been about social commentary THROUGH entertainment. That means it addresses issues that people aren't comfortable with, and does so in a manner that is true to the humanity of the question.
If you want mindless entertainment, then look elsewhere. Trek has always had a cerebral aspect that is key to it's allure.
No it really hasn't. Ask Roddenberry about the larger lesson of bedding actresses who appeared on the show while he was married. Or while he was doing drugs. Or while he was using his 'Lincoln Enterprises' to sell IDIC medallions.
Star Trek was fun action-adventure produced in the 1960's. Modern Trek was the one who tried to get us to buy into the hype of Star Trek as social commentary.
Star Trek is mindless entertainment compared to literary science-fiction. You'll find more astute social commentary watching the sitcom All in the Family.
http://www.ibiblio.org/jwsnyder/wisdom/trek.html
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_05/iss_2/CAJ_vol5.2_17_e.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...page&q=star trek as social commentary&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...page&q=star trek as social commentary&f=false
I see that a large section of academia disagrees with you...
Actually they both address issues, just in different ways.
http://courses.georgetown.edu/index.cfm?Action=View&CourseID=PHIL-180
The only thing these prove is that the American public has too much time and too little common sense.
I'm as big a fan of Star Trek as you'll find... but I'll never be caught worshiping at the alter of Roddenberry. The man had his own interests at heart... no one else.
Biting piece of social commentary here:
It's not about the cult of Roddenberry, it's the greater social commentary that the writers have put into the show since the first episode.
Star Trek is so popular because it deals with the social issues that are relevant to day. The original series dealt often with race and the cold war. Next Generation dealt with fiscal disparity, and the threats of rogue states. DS9 dealt with terrorism and relations with "third world" nations and terrorism. Voyager dealt with all sorts of cultural differences as well as with terrorism.
Cmon, peeps. Star Trek is America in space. After all this time, haven't you noticed?
The guy in the OP's av would make a decent captain next time around, but I say he needs to be an alien. Howsabout a dissent Rommie?
There's your dramatic tension. He can be gay for all I care, but it wouldn't help with dramatic tension in the context of 24th C mores.
TOS and DS9 are the only series that ever made a serious and successful attempt at social commentary. The others made attempts, but they were cringeworthy at best.
The guy in the OP's av would make a decent captain next time around, but I say he needs to be an alien. Howsabout a dissent Rommie?
There's your dramatic tension. He can be gay for all I care, but it wouldn't help with dramatic tension in the context of 24th C mores.TOS and DS9 are the only series that ever made a serious and successful attempt at social commentary. The others made attempts, but they were cringeworthy at best.
