Do you think LGBT characters will feature more prominently?
- Thread starter Curios_Gelatin
- Start date
- Status
You're reaching φ of π. That's a poorly written post by a noob. Maybe they're a hateful son of a gun, or maybe that post is just a total cock up.
I love french bread.
Is the Federation going to require them to destroy their starships (to make the Ithenites easier to control?). Don't see any reason the Ithenites (or any member) wouldn't retain their starships, under their own control.
There could be a requirement that a member deploy some of their starships on Starfleet missions.
Check and balances.
if Alaska sends troops to Russia without congressional approval, Russian is not going to recognize the nuiance, and they will attack the other 49 states too for whatever shitstorm Alaska started.
if Alaska sends troops to Russia without congressional approval, Russian is not going to recognize the nuiance, and they will attack the other 49 states too for whatever shitstorm Alaska started.
Yeah, re-reading my post, it does come off as far more confrontational than I'd intended. It was supposed to be seeking clarification on the previous poster's viewpoint. I'll see if I can edit my other post.
It might (or not) be the same if Poland invaded Russia, Russia might then attack all of NATO.
I think the Federation is more like NATO than the United States (although not identical).
On one hand we assume that member worlds might not want to stay in the Federation forever, and might not want to hand over everything into a community chest... On the other hand, the Federation probably isn't interested in inducting a planet who is a will nilly, on the fence, flip flopper.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
(Irony noted.)
Well, we can check with treklit where the story kept going.
What does the dictionary have to say?
Absorption of the Bajoran fleet itself? Really? What fleet? They were slaves kept on chains in caves 7 years before the conclusion of the series. Building the Infrastructure, plus finding the staff to keep that shipyard running takes a while to set up. They couldn't even keep DS9 running without mainlining aid from the Federation.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Bajoran_starship
Small, and shittier than a runabout.
The only Star Ships (the word "star ship" is metered by an inverse relationship between tonnage and bombasity) Bajor would have had are that which Cardassian abandoned when they bugged out, were seized/liberated/looted during a war, they bought from a third hand dealer, or Starfleet gifted them to Defend Bajor from the Dominion.
What does the dictionary have to say?
Not everyone in the militia would be qualified to join Starfleet without an interview, passing the final exam, or taking a few years of course work, which probably already should have been underway before Bajor had a labour force that was useful to Starfleet and the Federation to cherry pick from. Since these new Officers and Crewmen are answerable now to the Admiralty, and not Bajor, only the shittiest and worst of them wouldn't be snapped up by commands all over the AQ looking for the best and brightest.
Absorption of the Bajoran fleet itself? Really? What fleet? They were slaves kept on chains in caves 7 years before the conclusion of the series. Building the Infrastructure, plus finding the staff to keep that shipyard running takes a while to set up. They couldn't even keep DS9 running without mainlining aid from the Federation.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Bajoran_starship
Small, and shittier than a runabout.
The only Star Ships (the word "star ship" is metered by an inverse relationship between tonnage and bombasity) Bajor would have had are that which Cardassian abandoned when they bugged out, were seized/liberated/looted during a war, they bought from a third hand dealer, or Starfleet gifted them to Defend Bajor from the Dominion.
On one hand I can see the Cardassians weeding out the undesirables, but on the other hand isn't "comfortboy" such an uplifting job title?
I get the impression from TrekLit - including the Garek novel that Andew Robinson wrote - that Cardassians didn't have a taboo against same sex relationships, so I'd expect there were comfort men (since we here mention of comfort women and not comfort girls I vaguely assume it would be men not boys)
Personally never feel that "treklit" was a part of the show, although I have read a few of the older novels. YMMV.
A military being absorbed.
Assuming a new member has a military, which might be a requirement to join the Federation (being able to pull your own weight), Bajor was short on starships, but would be bringing a ground force to the table.
Part of being a member of the Federation is being in a military alliance. * I think * it would be (again) more something like NATO where you agree to support other Federation members in times of trouble, the member's military has to be able to interact with other Federation member's militaries. Fight under a single command.
That where the absorbing comes in, it not that the member "loses" their military, but they will be require to make some changes (if necessary) to be able to work as a unit during a crisis.
Sexuality doesn't seem to be a big societal issue with the Bajorans, although we (iirc) never saw any Bajoran gays.
Mirror Kira, and Mirror Leeta.
So any straight people we saw in the mirror universe, their counterparts are most probably gay in the regular universe.
So any straight people we saw in the mirror universe, their counterparts are most probably gay in the regular universe.
Just coming into the conversation. My response to the title subject is... Who cares?
What makes a character interesting is what he/she/it/them/they/other DO. How they react and interact. Their story matters FAR more than their sexual identity. Gay, lesbian, straight, transgender, transvestite --- That's board game night at the local Game Store for me. What makes these cats interesting is who they are, not what they are. The "What" is just flavor text you add to round the character out.
What makes a character interesting is what he/she/it/them/they/other DO. How they react and interact. Their story matters FAR more than their sexual identity. Gay, lesbian, straight, transgender, transvestite --- That's board game night at the local Game Store for me. What makes these cats interesting is who they are, not what they are. The "What" is just flavor text you add to round the character out.
The subject line is "will LGBT characters be feature more prominently?" I think the answer to that is: Yes.
Do I think they SHOULD be featured more prominently? No.
Don't get me wrong here. Personally, I don't care what a character orientation is. That's not my objection.
My point is, I don't "trust" Hollywood to write in such a character without going overboard with an agenda/message/political correctness every chance they get.
Go back to the original series. They had a black (a black female at that), a Russian, and an Oriental in the cast. This was during the height of the Civil Rights movement, the Cold War, and the Viet-Nam War. Regardless of what was said behind the camera or by the viewing public, never once did the script ever mention race as a factor for any of these characters. If anything, there was dialog about females in the crew / on the bridge / in the center seat. Sure, there were plot lines that were obvious commentary on the then-current Civil Rights issues of the day. But never once did they say, "Oh, look, we have a ____ in the crew!"
Likewise, when The Next Generation came along, they never talked about the race/gender of any crewman. Indeed, before the show premiered, there was an interview with the cast in which LaVar Burton said he was "the token black man in the cast". In the next interview a few days later, he was asked about this, and he quickly changed the subject. Rumor had it someone took him aside and told him to never say that again if he didn't want his character written out of the show halfway thru the first season. And the fact that "Geordi LaForge" was black never was mentioned even once in any ST:TNG script.
But if the writers back then had the same attitude as today's writers, I truly believe they would have brought up the subject of race as much as they could. And I suspect today's Hollywood writers will bring up the character's LGBT orientation as often and as loudly as they can. Look, Star Trek is supposed to be two-hundred plus years in the future, right? Presumably social norms will have changed and moderated to the point nobody will think twice about the race/gender/orientation of anyone they serve with. Yes?? But I for one don't trust Hollywood to understand that.
Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, until someone tells me otherwise ON-SCREEN, that was Sulu's brother who met him at the end of the last movie.
Do I think they SHOULD be featured more prominently? No.
Don't get me wrong here. Personally, I don't care what a character orientation is. That's not my objection.
My point is, I don't "trust" Hollywood to write in such a character without going overboard with an agenda/message/political correctness every chance they get.
Go back to the original series. They had a black (a black female at that), a Russian, and an Oriental in the cast. This was during the height of the Civil Rights movement, the Cold War, and the Viet-Nam War. Regardless of what was said behind the camera or by the viewing public, never once did the script ever mention race as a factor for any of these characters. If anything, there was dialog about females in the crew / on the bridge / in the center seat. Sure, there were plot lines that were obvious commentary on the then-current Civil Rights issues of the day. But never once did they say, "Oh, look, we have a ____ in the crew!"
Likewise, when The Next Generation came along, they never talked about the race/gender of any crewman. Indeed, before the show premiered, there was an interview with the cast in which LaVar Burton said he was "the token black man in the cast". In the next interview a few days later, he was asked about this, and he quickly changed the subject. Rumor had it someone took him aside and told him to never say that again if he didn't want his character written out of the show halfway thru the first season. And the fact that "Geordi LaForge" was black never was mentioned even once in any ST:TNG script.
But if the writers back then had the same attitude as today's writers, I truly believe they would have brought up the subject of race as much as they could. And I suspect today's Hollywood writers will bring up the character's LGBT orientation as often and as loudly as they can. Look, Star Trek is supposed to be two-hundred plus years in the future, right? Presumably social norms will have changed and moderated to the point nobody will think twice about the race/gender/orientation of anyone they serve with. Yes?? But I for one don't trust Hollywood to understand that.
Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, until someone tells me otherwise ON-SCREEN, that was Sulu's brother who met him at the end of the last movie.
It really was, with his daughter (Hikaru's niece).
Is the correct spelling gagenda or gaygender?
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
