• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Do you think LGBT characters will feature more prominently?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Had we seen the two actual kiss then it might've been something romantic, but as it was they were hugging. If I hadn't seen my brother in months/years I'd hug him hello.

As for the child it can't be Demora as she wouldn't even be born in the 2260s, so I assume it Sulu's niece--or are we meant to overlook her age as they say we should do with "Pavel" Chekov?

It's another reality! In Parallels worf sometimes had children, sometimes he didn't. Sometimes he had one boy with Key'ler , sometimes he had two kids with Deanna. We must assume that it's similar here.
 
Yes but Alexander would always have been the same age, there may have been a reality it two where it was Alexandria, but even she would be the same age.

So time works differently there? If they said that then it'd make sense.
 
Yes but Alexander would always have been the same age, there may have been a reality it two where it was Alexandria, but even she would be the same age.

So time works differently there? If they said that then it'd make sense.

We don't know if it's the same person. Even if she has the same name, it could just be a coincidence. Perhaps Sulu just really likes that name. I wasn't named after an ancestor but three of my brothers were. I think it's likely that those names would have been given regardless of who was or wasn't born.
 
Each series is a product of the time it was made. TOS is full of 60s era sexism and they never really address that.
Some things are obvious, others not. My take on the sexism in the 23rd century is that this as a part of the then general culture. Just because we have certain culture beliefs today, doesn't mean those beliefs would remain in place and stagnant for centuries.

The sexism was out in the open and on display. It was obvious.

The reasons and motivations for the absence of gays never has been, so address it ... openly.

Janice was a wackadoodle
So was Matt Decker, Picard went all Captain Ahab in one of the movies. Being wackadoodle apparently isn't a detriment to joining Starfleet.

Star Trek Beyond already did it
If I hadn't been "prepped" that there was going to be a Sulu is gay moment in the movie, I wouldn't have taken that scene as Sulu being gay. Likely it would have just been Sulu's friend and the friend's child greeting him, nothing more.

I've asked people I know about that one scene, and none of them saw it as Sulu meeting a gay lover/spouse.
 
The Berman era played it safe. I would assume since it is 2016 where we have gender or race changes to characters, shows with a bit more diversity (rather than tokens), that LGBT characters would also feature prominently....even on a show with 'Star Trek' in the title.

And I agree with the poster above about the Sulu scene in "Star Trek Beyond": If the media didn't 'hype' it up, I probably would have taken the scene as him - Sulu - touching bases with a close friend or relative (or 'relatives,' if we were to include the little girl who seems to be a daughter since her picture is prominently placed on his console).
 
The Berman era played it safe. I would assume since it is 2016 where we have gender or race changes to characters, shows with a bit more diversity (rather than tokens), that LGBT characters would also feature prominently....even on a show with 'Star Trek' in the title.

And I agree with the poster above about the Sulu scene in "Star Trek Beyond": If the media didn't 'hype' it up, I probably would have taken the scene as him - Sulu - touching bases with a close friend or relative (or 'relatives,' if we were to include the little girl who seems to be a daughter since her picture is prominently placed on his console).

That's the thing. They want to make it look like they are acknowledging LGBT and at the same time they make it ambiguous enough to people who want to ignore it. How long do they plan on staying in that zone. It's anybody's guess. We won't know until the show has started.
 
I think she means a network would like to keep every audience member possible and any one group matters as much as the next. Bigots and non-bigots alike need cars, toilet paper, dishwasher soap, and pretzels.
 
Some things are obvious, others not. My take on the sexism in the 23rd century is that this as a part of the then general culture. Just because we have certain culture beliefs today, doesn't mean those beliefs would remain in place and stagnant for centuries.

The sexism was out in the open and on display. It was obvious.

The reasons and motivations for the absence of gays never has been, so address it ... openly.
I find the idea that social progress is going to regress, especially in an era where mankind is supposedly more advanced than the present, to be deeply sad and troubling.

Really I think the best idea is to just act like it never came up. There were always LGBT crewmembers, we just never happen to see them. We've only seen a very small sample of Starfleet since we only focus on a small portion of a single crew on a single starship. For all we know there are plenty of LGBT crewmembers on the 1701 or the 1701-D, we just never got a chance to see them or the issue never came up because they were too busy exploring planets.
 
Despite the textbook definition, Bigotry is often about hating a group of people for no reason, or flawed reasons.

There are justifiable sane reasons to hate almost any group of people.
 
Nazis? I can think of a couple fair reasons to dislike Nazis.

Unwavering homosexuality comprises %10 - %30 of the human race, if you want to include bisexuals, dilly-dalliers and tourists, then it's actually probably a pretty hard 40 percent.

Calling %40 percent of the species "a group of people" is a little insincere.

Earlier I was being subtle about religion.

They don't like it when I doubt their Sky-Genie.
 
I find the idea that social progress is going to regress ...
I would find it extremely odd if our society never changed over the course of centuries. Certainly humanity as a collective whole is going to be altered by events and adapt to societal fluctuations. There will also be the input of dozens/hundreds of alien cultures with their viewpoints.
especially in an era where mankind is supposedly more advanced than the present, to be deeply sad and troubling
I personally found the federation's position on the prime directive in the 24th century to be very troubling and cold hearted.

It indicates a society that is capable of thinking quite differently than we would today.
Really I think the best idea is to just act like it never came up. There were always LGBT crewmembers, we just never happen to see them.
The ignore it and pretend it never happen option? Admittedly that would be one way to go. However I like it when Star Trek takes bold steps, something that it doesn't do as often as it's reputation suggests.

Directly addressing the past absence would also be a option.
We've only seen a very small sample of Starfleet since we only focus on a small portion of a single crew on a single starship.
No, we actually seen and heard of a fair number of attractions, sexual situations, relationships and some marriages too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top