I-Am-Zim
Captain
God I hope not.
Gay Crew members
- Thread starter Guardian452
- Start date
God I hope not.
I agree with Bill's opinion. I would rather not be seeing any "fruity" antics on screen either. Sure, maybe a character is homosexual, but they don't have to blatantly stuff it in our faces to prove it.
Sure, maybe a character is heterosexual, but they don't have to blatantly stuff it in our faces to prove it.
The Spock/Uhura make-out scenes are just offensive to me as two guys making-out in elevators and transporter pads would be to you. IDIC is not just a piece of jewelry.
People tend to confuse romance with sex. I much prefer to see real romance in a movie than sexual make-out scenes.
I think the point is...
In 1964, when Gene first thought up "Star Trek" he had a woman as second in command.
In 1966, when it first got to air, he had minorities as both walk-on token roles, but more importantly, he had them up front where it counted. He has an Asian pilot, an African communications officer, and though not technically a minority, he had a Russian navigator in the middle of the Cold War.
In 1966, "Star Trek" was saying the thinking of the day was not that of the future. That an all Caucasian universe was not what tomorrow would hold.
I still don't grasp how he was able to get away with that in those days. As in these days, 40 years later, there is "controversy" whenever two gay characters so much as kiss.
A lot of folks have said not to equate the struggle for equality that races and women went through in the 60s with the same battle today for people of other sexual orientations. For the life of me, I can't see why not to do so.
Any group struggling for respect and equality is as any other group before who has done such. The differences in those fights are as superficial as the differences that divided and continue to divide to this day.
The fact that "Star Trek" once pushed boundaries, and has since become satisfied to live on those laurels of 40 years ago rather than to continue to crusade for equality and respect for all is... disappointing to say the least.
By omission, the message is being sent that in the future everyone is equal -- except for the gays. They're still to be hidden away, and for everyone to pretend they don't exist.
I find it offensive as a heterosexual man. I can only imagine how a homosexual individual must feel about it.
I look at my self, my own position in life, and consider how fortunate I am to be a Caucasian male of European decent living in the USA. I face no discrimination of consequence. Yet I don't simply throw my hands up and shrug my shoulders and say "not my problem" because of such. Rather, I consider it even more important a responsibility that I stand up for others who do face unjust discrimination.
In 1964, when Gene first thought up "Star Trek" he had a woman as second in command.
In 1966, when it first got to air, he had minorities as both walk-on token roles, but more importantly, he had them up front where it counted. He has an Asian pilot, an African communications officer, and though not technically a minority, he had a Russian navigator in the middle of the Cold War.
In 1966, "Star Trek" was saying the thinking of the day was not that of the future. That an all Caucasian universe was not what tomorrow would hold.
I still don't grasp how he was able to get away with that in those days. As in these days, 40 years later, there is "controversy" whenever two gay characters so much as kiss.
A lot of folks have said not to equate the struggle for equality that races and women went through in the 60s with the same battle today for people of other sexual orientations. For the life of me, I can't see why not to do so.
Any group struggling for respect and equality is as any other group before who has done such. The differences in those fights are as superficial as the differences that divided and continue to divide to this day.
The fact that "Star Trek" once pushed boundaries, and has since become satisfied to live on those laurels of 40 years ago rather than to continue to crusade for equality and respect for all is... disappointing to say the least.
By omission, the message is being sent that in the future everyone is equal -- except for the gays. They're still to be hidden away, and for everyone to pretend they don't exist.
I find it offensive as a heterosexual man. I can only imagine how a homosexual individual must feel about it.
I look at my self, my own position in life, and consider how fortunate I am to be a Caucasian male of European decent living in the USA. I face no discrimination of consequence. Yet I don't simply throw my hands up and shrug my shoulders and say "not my problem" because of such. Rather, I consider it even more important a responsibility that I stand up for others who do face unjust discrimination.
The only way we'll ever get a gay character in a Trek movie not based on a future Trek show with a gay main character is a gay subplot. A crewmember suddenly just announcing "I'm gay" would only be ridiculous and completely irrelevant to the plot. But I think the next series will have a gay character.
I would like to see either a gay character, or some indication that the future appreciates and values homosexuality as much as other orientatations. It can be something as noticiable as having a major gay or bi character (and s/he doesn't have to say "I'm gay" for people to get that - it can be done through good acting) or by at least having a little scene in a bar or at a party where you can see a couple guys/girls kissing or holding hands.
Was homosexuality more controversial than race issues in the late sixties? If so, maybe that's why Star Trek just left it alone. In the 80's and 90's it was less of an issue, but it was still a big issue - especially if like me you live in the American-South-Bible-belt where there are STILL people who believe gays will burn in hell (**shudders**). It could be that Paramount was afraid of alienating the conservative part of its audience (still not fair, though), and if so, it seems like the tradition has stuck.
Was homosexuality more controversial than race issues in the late sixties? If so, maybe that's why Star Trek just left it alone. In the 80's and 90's it was less of an issue, but it was still a big issue - especially if like me you live in the American-South-Bible-belt where there are STILL people who believe gays will burn in hell (**shudders**). It could be that Paramount was afraid of alienating the conservative part of its audience (still not fair, though), and if so, it seems like the tradition has stuck.
Why does Star Trek need gay characters? If they developed them properly just like any other character and didn't turn them into "token party gays" like most shows do, it might be fine, but arbitrarily adding a character of every sexuality and race is just forced, p.c. rubbish.
Thinking over the plot of FC, exactly how was Lt. Hawk suppose to have been indicated to be gay? I know there was a nice storyline in the Titan novels to this effect, but how in the movie would this to have been made to work? And in what way did the producers "chicken out?"
I seem to remember always enjoying gay sex, it's been a little while (Guardian thinks I'm a idiot).
In the case of the J'naii, as I understand it, they have two genders, what their society insisted upon was a lack of personal gender identity.
Ummm, doesn't bother me that much.
I don't think someone is an idiot because they enjoy gay sex, I think people are idiots because they think being gay always means sex. It means alot of other things to, just as much as being heterosexual does.
I'm not saying that there should be a character that just walks onto the bridge on the next movie and announces for not good reason that they are gay. Agreed, that would be stupid.
What we need is a character that is possibly in a relationship with someone of the same gender, but isn't hiding it. Maybe just holding hands, or a little kiss on the cheek. It doesn't have to be huge, and of course not some sort of pink uniform. Where people come up with that nonsense I'll never know.
I'm not saying that there should be a character that just walks onto the bridge on the next movie and announces for not good reason that they are gay. Agreed, that would be stupid.
What we need is a character that is possibly in a relationship with someone of the same gender, but isn't hiding it. Maybe just holding hands, or a little kiss on the cheek. It doesn't have to be huge, and of course not some sort of pink uniform. Where people come up with that nonsense I'll never know.
Again, the idea of a ship only crewed by gays or having a "fabulous" interior is stereotypical, and a story line that would be way out there. We are talking about something a little more realistic, not in your face unrelatable to the story.
I agree that it doesn't have to be a major issue or part of a plot. I'm knocking up some cheesy fan fiction using stills from TMP and there were more than a few muscle marys in over-tight jumpsuits featured in that film. I will probably feature a gay couple just doing their jobs as part of the background of one of the stories I write. I will also try to avoid killing one or both of them in the next scene...
Um, that's not really controversial anymore. Not sure how it is in the States, but here in the UK it's kind of been addressed a million times via stuff like Eastenders, or Coronation St, or the million other soaps, never mind all the prime time drama etc we get. Sure, two men have not smooched in "Balamory", but I'd say this "taboo" isn't really a taboo anymore.
I think it's something for the laydeez. Romance of the week, no, but will-they wont-they plots are a staple of many drama shows and eventually, they will and you have to have something in mind for when that happens. In the eighties it was simple, you shot the woman as she walked up the isle, but these days we need to see the whole thing play out.
Well how's this: we leave everyone's sexuality up in the air and never see it again. Not Kirk or anyone has a sexual relationship or though shown to us. It's all business from here on out. Whomever they have relationships with is utterly offscreen or between movies/episodes.
^ Agreed.
Spock and Uhura's relationship was, in some way, important to the plot, so it was shown. We can't expect every relationship between every pair of crewmembers to get that kind of time. We don't see gay, or even straight, relationships (for the most part) because it's just not important to the plot.
Spock and Uhura's relationship was, in some way, important to the plot, so it was shown. We can't expect every relationship between every pair of crewmembers to get that kind of time. We don't see gay, or even straight, relationships (for the most part) because it's just not important to the plot.
Similar threads
- Locked
