hopefully some gayness/lesbianess

[Cyke101]

If you are gay, fine, but really, does the entire world have to hear about it each and every day? Do you have to constantly "wave the gay flag" every chance you get? Do you have to constantly "demand" to see more gays in movies, sports, music, and everything else under the sun? It gets annoying.

I think you need to ask yourself why it bothers you so much. If we want to "wave the gay flag," why should you care?

This isn't a counter to your post at all, but in the future, I sincerely hope there's no need to wave the flag anymore in order to declare, that people just don't assume someone else's sexuality anymore.

I love how sexuality is approached in Doctor Who, in that if the Doctor comes across a person of LGBT origin, he doesn't bat an eye; you could be gay or straight or bi, just as how the sky can be night or day, it's just there. The sexual orientation of a character has as much story value as that person's eye color.

 

[Superman]

Please God, no. There's enough "woe is me, woe are we, we're gay! We demand you be okay with us!" victimization in the drive-by media and on every show you watch and every magazine you see.

Keep any details of such deviant activity kept under wraps. It's bad enough our president-elect wants kindergartners to receive sex ed about deviant homosexual sex and heterosexual sex.

Keep the movie about Star Trek, and keep the political message and leftist bullshit away.

\S/

 

[Eric Cheung]

Do we really want the first new Trek movie in seven years to only be known for having homosexual characters in it or being a kickass movie?

The point being is...I don't care if there are gay characters but this society is in NO way mature enough for even a background shot of a gay couple to not cause a riot. It won't happen. There is just no FINANCIALLY viable reason to do it.

And a Trek movie which does that would be condemned by fundamental religious groups and cause crazy fools to ban their sheeple from going to see it.

It doesn't have to be either/or. To wait until society is "mature enough," or to be afraid of "crazy fools to ban their sheeple form going to see it" would paralyze the issue. Let them try to ban such a movie. It wouldn't work, and if anything it would bring a notoreity to Trek that would make it relevent again. Monty Python's Life of Brian, the Harry Potter films, and Dogma didn't exactly fail in the face us such pressure. Society doesn't get used to something if that concept is kept hidden.

Lesbianess between two Orion slave girls, played by Diora Baird and Rachel Nichols? Yes please! But no gayness, thank you!

Well, then obviously it wouldn't be about real characters would it? It would be primarily to serve frat boys' fantasies or something.

I think if TPTB ever do decide to show homosexuality in Trek it'd be a lot easier to do so on a series.
There'd be more time to introduce the characters showing every aspect of their personality. Putting a gay character into a 2 hour movie would be too forced and would garner more negative reactions.

Even "making an issue of it" in a series would be overdone.

Here's a way it could happen which wouldn't seem forced.

"Scene 1 - On the Bridge - Crewman Joe says to Crewman Frank - 'Hey, some of us are going to hit the bowling alley tonight... wanna come along?' Crewman Frank responds - 'I'd love to, but I've got a date.'

"Scene 2 - Crewman Joe and his friends are on their way to the bowling alley. They pass Crewman Frank and Crewman Steve along the way and say hello."
​

Here's how it usually ends up being done.

"Scene 1 - On the Bridge - Crewman Joe says to Crewman Frank - "Hey, some of us are going to hit the bowling alley tonight... wanna come along?' Crewman Frank responds - 'Sorry, I've got a hot date with crewman Steve tonight, and if you don't like it... YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND ME!!! WAAAAAAGGGGHHHH!"

"Scene 2 - Crewman Joe and his friends are on their way to the bowling alley, when they are accosted by Crewman Frank and Crewman Steve who corner them and demand "ACCEPT US! ACCEPT US!" at the top of their lungs.
​

(granted - a little bit of minor exaggeration there, but you get my point, I hope!)

I'd have no problem with the first version. It's the tendency to go for version 2 that annoys me.

People here have cited Doctor Who as an example of how Scenario 1 has happened. It's the likely way it would be tackled unless the movie was specifically about characters who were gay. Scenario 1 is far more likely to be the way it would be approached.

Please God, no. There's enough "woe is me, woe are we, we're gay! We demand you be okay with us!" victimization in the drive-by media and on every show you watch and every magazine you see.

Keep any details of such deviant activity kept under wraps. It's bad enough our president-elect wants kindergartners to receive sex ed about deviant homosexual sex and heterosexual sex.

Keep the movie about Star Trek, and keep the political message and leftist bullshit away.

\S/

Star Trek, especially TOS, was about political messages. To keep the political away would be counter to making the movie about Star Trek. The whole reason a guy who used to write police procedurals wanted to create a show like Star Trek was to tell stories he couldn't tell in an Earth-based drama about a future in which people that represented the diversity of Earth on missions of interstellar diplomacy and military engagements that mirrored the international politics of Earth in the 20th century. Since then though Trek has become less prone to take those kinds of risks and are actually behind the rest of the industry in that regard, and even the rest of the industry is far from pervasive in the matter.

And the president-elect's vote was for a bill that's been recognized on boths sides of the aisle as something designed to protect children from sexual predators.

 

[Sector 7]

Is it? So show homosexual people, only if 'they have a place in the story'. Rubbish. Should they only depict heterosexual people only if they have a place in the story?

Nonsense.

I know very few people who are so shallow, who lead such useless lives, that who they get turned on by is the most central and defining characteristic of who they are.

FYI, I always sort of assumed Sulu was gay... but never cared all that much. (I was a bit surprised when they portrayed him as having become a father at some point, actually... and realize this was all long before Takei's sexual preference was ever an issue).

The thing is, 99% of the time, a person is just a person. And in the course of an "adventure story" it makes very little sense for "Action heroic figure #4" to suddenly go off on a diatribe about how he or she feels about his or her social life.

If there's some element of some character which is significant to that character in some fashion... sure, touch on it briefly, but don't make an issue of it. That's what I find so annoying with all the push to have "gay characters" in Trek (usually in prose fiction). It's not that the characters happen to be gay... it's that their storylines always seem to turn into freakin' SOAP OPERAS.

I find soap operas... regardless of whether it's between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or a man and his inflatable sheep puppet... to be obnoxious! If I wanted to watch something like that, I'd turn on "As the Stomach Turns," not Star Trek...

Cary, you have to stop agreeing with me... people will talk! As long as it is an incidental facet of the character, I am fine with it. I would like to see their homosexuality in the background as part of who they are, but not as a soap opera plot point. Lt. Joe was on an away team where Ensign Redshirt was killed. Back in his quarters he shares how he feels about the loss with his (male) mate who comforts him reassuringly. Tasefully done yet shows gay people are a part of the future.

Each under-represented group has a certain threshold to cross before their status as a representative of that group is irrelevent. Presence alone justifies having such groups represented on screen. It doesn't have to be over-the-top. I think in Mr. Holland's Opus they had a gay couple holding hands when the movie shifted to 1995, that was all. In TOS most of the diverse groups represented were done in ways that would be stereotypical now but it was a step in the right direction because they were all at least seen as professional, equal members of the crew. I think there should be a presence, and there's no way it has to be done as over-the-top as was done in TOS, I hope we've learned since then what approach to take.

Agreed.

 

[M'Sharak]

Please God, no. There's enough "woe is me, woe are we, we're gay! We demand you be okay with us!" victimization in the drive-by media and on every show you watch and every magazine you see.

Keep any details of such deviant activity kept under wraps. It's bad enough our president-elect wants kindergartners to receive sex ed about deviant homosexual sex and heterosexual sex.

Keep the movie about Star Trek, and keep the political message and leftist bullshit away.

\S/

After I've repeatedly requested, in threads all over this forum, that US partisan political rhetoric be kept out of discussions here and left to forums more appropriate, and after I specifically requested in this thread that inflammatory language such as you've used here in referring to "deviant activity", etc. be avoided, you've cavalierly disregarded all of it and posted this chunk of bile and nastiness which hits those points and more.

Congratulations, you've got a warning for trolling.



Since there were several others in this thread who seemed to be having trouble avoiding the more political aspects of the issue, I'll close the thread now. It was fun while it lasted, and there were some interesting and valid points made, but these topics always seem to end up going the same way. This one's done.