You can bet there will be some heterosexual love affair in this movie.
hopefully some gayness/lesbianess
- Thread starter punkydrewster
- Start date
- Status
See that's what I would think. If it shouldn't be an issue for someone to be Homosexual then why should a movie make it one by pointedly showing it? If a character is gay... they're gay. But if none are then there's no point in changing that. That only makes an issue out of it which I assume is not what the gay audience is looking for.
Reading the Star Trek Titan novels there is I believe several gay characters, I know of at least two. Great characters, good part of the story. But they're purpose was not simply to be gay. That would be insulting. That just so happened to be who they are and that's all it is.
That's my point. They'd feel the need to write it up as if the character would have to focus on it. Over dramatizing it and making it seem awkward.
I think it'd work better as if it was just another aspect of the character. Instead of the main focus.
The problem is you can't practice that tolerance and diversity until an underrepresented group is well represented, or even overrepresented. The first wave of gay characters would have the burden of being representing their sexual orientation, rather than just being their character. But it's a threshold that each group crosses on the way towards being a more complex character in their own right. And the only way to do that is to start inserting such characters sooner rather than later.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Not backwards thinking, just sick of hearing about it every time you turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals. What I have a problem with is homosexuals who insist on making a statement every where they go.
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.
There are people that want to "teach" first graders about homosexuality in schools, long before kids have any idea what sex is even about. Is that something to be proud of?
Do they want to teach people about the mechanics of homosexuality or do they want to teach them about the different kinds of families out there? Because if it's the latter, what could be wrong with that, especially if they'll already be exposed to different kinds of families anyway?
Not backwards thinking, just sick of hearing about it every time you turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals. What I have a problem with is homosexuals who insist on making a statement every where they go.
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.
There are people that want to "teach" first graders about homosexuality in schools, long before kids have any idea what sex is even about. Is that something to be proud of?
And I at least understand the thinking behind gay pride because given the nature of homosexuality, it's something that's not obvious unless someone declares it in some fashion. And it needs to be declared on some level in order to gain acceptance and equal rights. Were I gay I don't know that I would do so in such declarative ways but I'd support those who wish to do so as long as it was peaceful in nature.
As for exposure in movies and television, it's the most important thing among the three points you bring up. Art is a reflection of society and if 10% of the world is gay, then 10% of the characters in TV shows and movies should be represented as gay. It's the same as the under representation of minorities, especially on the NBC sitcoms in the 90s. It's getting a little better now, but even now, minorities are cast as sidekick characters, and aren't often thought of in terms of playing lead characters.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Not backwards thinking, just sick of hearing about it every time you turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals. What I have a problem with is homosexuals who insist on making a statement every where they go.
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.
There are people that want to "teach" first graders about homosexuality in schools, long before kids have any idea what sex is even about. Is that something to be proud of?
Yeah, but so long as you don't have a problem with homosexuals...
And... Peter Kirk and his boyfriend:
I suppose it would be. Funny how I never see any of this actually happening. I get plenty of heterosexuality shoved in my face, but not too much gayness -- except for a certain amount of "Girls Gone Wild" fake-lesbianism, which I don't really have a problem with.
I bring the topic up because Abrams has stated he's committed to GR's vision. In the sixties having a multicultural crew was pretty revolutionary. And its not as if all the plots dealt with racism/oppression or whatever. It was revolutionary because they were there as valid, equal, and important members of the crew. It affirmed that in the future human dignity, rights, and worth would be upheld regardless of completely arbitrary characteristics. Our culture would be predicated on the best in our tradition, isntead of distinguishing ourselves by hating difference. This was at a time when white supremacy was still a legal, institutional, and cultural reality for the United States (one could argue that it still is).
So like a lot of folks on this board I'm gonna give this movie a shot, and if there isn't any gayness/lesbianess/bi-ness/trans-ness it won't be a deal breaker for me. As a straight guy I'm hoping that the late 23rd century won't be so heteronormative. LGBT folks in the US (and in the world) are now facing real legal, institutional, and (important for the purposes of this discussion) cultural discrimination, and oppression. Would you go to resturaunt that had the best ever sandwich if that resturaunt only served white people? No. So why would you get married? I think they should do it Star Trek style. Don't make a big deal out of it because its not a big deal anymore (23rd century). Just feature it as a single characteristic of one of the characters to affirm the place of LGBT folks in a future that is inclusive. I mean aliens are members of starfleet and not second class citizens. And they have an actual biological difference (foreheads). Disabled folks (Geordi) are included. Even androids are included. When I boldly go I want to go with all of my human family, not just those of us who have been arbitrarily priveliged by our sexuality/gender/class, race, ect. This movie will kick ass and revitalize star trek, and after hundreds of hours of future history where no, super-for-sure gayness/lesbianess/bi-ness/trans-ness has been seen, I don't feel like its to much to ask. I feel like its fair.
So like a lot of folks on this board I'm gonna give this movie a shot, and if there isn't any gayness/lesbianess/bi-ness/trans-ness it won't be a deal breaker for me. As a straight guy I'm hoping that the late 23rd century won't be so heteronormative. LGBT folks in the US (and in the world) are now facing real legal, institutional, and (important for the purposes of this discussion) cultural discrimination, and oppression. Would you go to resturaunt that had the best ever sandwich if that resturaunt only served white people? No. So why would you get married? I think they should do it Star Trek style. Don't make a big deal out of it because its not a big deal anymore (23rd century). Just feature it as a single characteristic of one of the characters to affirm the place of LGBT folks in a future that is inclusive. I mean aliens are members of starfleet and not second class citizens. And they have an actual biological difference (foreheads). Disabled folks (Geordi) are included. Even androids are included. When I boldly go I want to go with all of my human family, not just those of us who have been arbitrarily priveliged by our sexuality/gender/class, race, ect. This movie will kick ass and revitalize star trek, and after hundreds of hours of future history where no, super-for-sure gayness/lesbianess/bi-ness/trans-ness has been seen, I don't feel like its to much to ask. I feel like its fair.
There are people that want to "teach" first graders about homosexuality in schools, long before kids have any idea what sex is even about. Is that something to be proud of?
Because at that level, it's not about sex anymore, but about human beings, which has always been at the basis and heart of the matter to begin with. Anyone can have sex with anyone and still be called straight/gay/lesbian/etc. It's a much, much more complicated thing to identify what two people have as "love," which is the right of any human being.
For that matter, we're already teaching kindergarteners and first graders how to protect themselves against sexual offenders. Somehow it's okay to tell them how these strangers can hurt their bodies, but we're iffy about identifying the potential of love between two people of the same sex. What does that tell us about society? It's along the same lines of thought that say huge amounts of violence earn movies an R rating, but graphic sex between two consenting adults earns a movie an NC-17 rating and the accompanying stigma that goes with the rating.
If Star Trek ever shows a gay couple in the movie, you're not going to see a hardcore sex scene. You're going to see two people sharing their love by holding hands or being honest with each other. Is THAT something that will scare first graders?
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.
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.
Let's also face something about fanatically religious groups: they'll ban anyone from nearly anything anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Star Wars has some athiest philosophies intertwined with spiritual and religious philosophies, and that hasn't stopped Star Wars from being a billion-dollar industry.
I think you underestimate this society. I refuse to believe that the Earth is so populated with that much bigotry. It still exists, for sure, but there are strides being made. We also have gay characters in mainstream movies, portrayed positively and negatively. I doubt the extremely anti-gay side could muster up so many supporters. They could make a ruckus, but it's easier to love than to hate.
And if there's a background couple, there'll only be a few of us who will pay attention, and (assuming the movie is good), even fewer of us who will acknowledge this movie as the "gay" one. Most Trekkies, and the vast majority of the viewing audience, will view this movie (again, assuming it's good) as the kick ass movie.
Sorry, Cyke...but according to the United States intelligence agencies.... there have been MORE threats on President-elect Obama than on any President ever.
Mostly from racist groups.
Also, Proposition 8 helped make gay marriage illegal in one of the most identifiably 'gay' states in the US (California).
Yeah, sorry, I don't see how things have changed that much.
Mostly from racist groups.
Also, Proposition 8 helped make gay marriage illegal in one of the most identifiably 'gay' states in the US (California).
Yeah, sorry, I don't see how things have changed that much.
I'm well aware of all that. But according to the AP, Obama's probably going to have the biggest Presidential Inauguration crowd ever, between 3-5 million. If that's not positivity, I don't know what is. I'm going to bet that as threatened as Obama's been, he hasn't quite racked up 3-5 million death threats.
How many TV shows and movies have gay characters and have raked in millions, from romantic comedies to medical dramas? Those shows and films appeal to a mainstream audience, otherwise they wouldn't be so notable, too. One more film isn't going to change that for good or for ill, especially since some of those shows and films came out before Proposition 8 was ever on the table.
If a gay/lesbian example happened in an earlier film, maybe then it would be worthwhile. To paraphrase Picard, a film in the here and now is just a film. A film back then, though, could have made all the difference.
Lesbianess between two Orion slave girls, played by Diora Baird and Rachel Nichols? Yes please! But no gayness, thank you!
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.
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 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."
"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!)"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.
I'd have no problem with the first version. It's the tendency to go for version 2 that annoys me.
I don't want it to be an "issue". I'd much prefer it be like the first example you gave.
A character being gay should be treated like it's no big deal. Focus on the person not the persons sexuality.
The whole "We're here, we're queer get used to it!" approach would be insulting. Being gay isn't that big a deal to me. Honestly who a person sleeps with shouldn't matter. A person being defined by their sexual orientation rather than the rest of who they are is silly.
A character being gay should be treated like it's no big deal. Focus on the person not the persons sexuality.
The whole "We're here, we're queer get used to it!" approach would be insulting. Being gay isn't that big a deal to me. Honestly who a person sleeps with shouldn't matter. A person being defined by their sexual orientation rather than the rest of who they are is silly.
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?
- Status
Similar threads
