NuTrek: A homosexual's perspective

[Zeppster]

You can't really force relationships just because you want a relationship, gay or straight. That's the problem I saw in one of the Star Trek fan films a couple years back. To me the relationship they tried to make(which happened to be a gay one) seemed forced and really didn't work for me. Another one is the Checotay-Seven hook up in the last episode of that show. That seemed more hurried than anything else and came out of nowhere, but it was more forced than anything also. Some relationships click from like Mulder and Scully being meant for each other for example. Probably the best relationship in Star Trek outside of maybe the TOS one with Spock, McCoy, and Kirk is the one with O'Brien and Bashir. Now it wasn't sexual of course but that may have been a friendship just as close if not closer by the end.

 

[Trilliam]

At the risk of sounding stupid, if it doesn't impact on the performance of their duties, why does it matter who is doing what with whom (if they are both consenting adults), during their off-duty time?

 

[donners22]

If it's a character who happens to be gay, fine. I don't really care either way.

If they make a big deal out of it, then it may not work too well.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

K/S slash has such a long and distinguished pedigree - and the new recasting can only enhance such things - that as far as I'm concerned, Trek already has its honorary gay characters.

I'm actually far more concerned how they are going to handle the Spock-Uhura thang...the writers are pretty gutsy to lock themselves into a romance that they cannot easily extricate themselves from, as per Trek tradition, by feeding one party to a hungry space ameoba or simply throwing her under a bus (necessary for stopping the Nazis from taking over the world dontcha know).

And they can't just jettison the relationship without further ado in the next flick, without making both parties seem shallow (not ever an option for Spock and not either for Uhura, especially in her new incarnation). They can "break up" but there will still be an elephant in the room, on the bridge, on away missions, etc.

 

[Trilliam]

K/S slash has such a long and distinguished pedigree - and the new recasting can only enhance such things - that as far as I'm concerned, Trek already has its honorary gay characters.

I'm actually far more concerned how they are going to handle the Spock-Uhura thang...the writers are pretty gutsy to lock themselves into a romance that they cannot easily extricate themselves from, as per Trek tradition, by feeding one party to a hungry space ameoba or simply throwing her under a bus (necessary for stopping the Nazis from taking over the world dontcha know).

And they can't just jettison the relationship without further ado in the next flick, without making both parties seem shallow (not ever an option for Spock and not either for Uhura, especially in her new incarnation). They can "break up" but there will still be an elephant in the room, on the bridge, on away missions, etc.

Like no one has ever had to work with somone after their office romance has crashed and burned - what a radical concept. Sometimes I wonder how old some posters are.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

K/S slash has such a long and distinguished pedigree - and the new recasting can only enhance such things - that as far as I'm concerned, Trek already has its honorary gay characters.

I'm actually far more concerned how they are going to handle the Spock-Uhura thang...the writers are pretty gutsy to lock themselves into a romance that they cannot easily extricate themselves from, as per Trek tradition, by feeding one party to a hungry space ameoba or simply throwing her under a bus (necessary for stopping the Nazis from taking over the world dontcha know).

And they can't just jettison the relationship without further ado in the next flick, without making both parties seem shallow (not ever an option for Spock and not either for Uhura, especially in her new incarnation). They can "break up" but there will still be an elephant in the room, on the bridge, on away missions, etc.

Like no one has ever had to work with somone after their office romance has crashed and burned - what a radical concept. Sometimes I wonder how old some posters are.

OK I'll confess. I'm three years old!

I know, I got lots of people here fooled.

Ok seriously...every example of people breaking up and having to work together has been...uncomfortable. Not that I've been a direct party to such things (I ain't that dumb!) but I've been an observer and it ain't fun.

More to the point: it would be clumsy writing to present this relationship and just have it go nowheres. Which trumps anything that might happen in real life. I actually have a fair amount of respect for these writers (what a change from the bad old days of Trek) and I'm pretty sure they have an overarching plan. There's a reason that they chose to present this relationship in the first place and this movie hasn't even begun to scratch the surface.

 

[Trilliam]

K/S slash has such a long and distinguished pedigree - and the new recasting can only enhance such things - that as far as I'm concerned, Trek already has its honorary gay characters.

I'm actually far more concerned how they are going to handle the Spock-Uhura thang...the writers are pretty gutsy to lock themselves into a romance that they cannot easily extricate themselves from, as per Trek tradition, by feeding one party to a hungry space ameoba or simply throwing her under a bus (necessary for stopping the Nazis from taking over the world dontcha know).

And they can't just jettison the relationship without further ado in the next flick, without making both parties seem shallow (not ever an option for Spock and not either for Uhura, especially in her new incarnation). They can "break up" but there will still be an elephant in the room, on the bridge, on away missions, etc.

Like no one has ever had to work with somone after their office romance has crashed and burned - what a radical concept. Sometimes I wonder how old some posters are.

OK I'll confess. I'm three years old!

I know, I got lots of people here fooled.

BTW, I love "The Desperate Housewives" take on Snow White...very cool.

 

[Trilliam]

K/S slash has such a long and distinguished pedigree - and the new recasting can only enhance such things - that as far as I'm concerned, Trek already has its honorary gay characters.

I'm actually far more concerned how they are going to handle the Spock-Uhura thang...the writers are pretty gutsy to lock themselves into a romance that they cannot easily extricate themselves from, as per Trek tradition, by feeding one party to a hungry space ameoba or simply throwing her under a bus (necessary for stopping the Nazis from taking over the world dontcha know).

And they can't just jettison the relationship without further ado in the next flick, without making both parties seem shallow (not ever an option for Spock and not either for Uhura, especially in her new incarnation). They can "break up" but there will still be an elephant in the room, on the bridge, on away missions, etc.

Like no one has ever had to work with somone after their office romance has crashed and burned - what a radical concept. Sometimes I wonder how old some posters are.

OK I'll confess. I'm three years old!

I know, I got lots of people here fooled.

Ok seriously...every example of people breaking up and having to work together has been...uncomfortable. Not that I've been a direct party to such things (I ain't that dumb!) but I've been an observer and it ain't fun.

More to the point: it would be clumsy writing to present this relationship and just have it go nowheres. Which trumps anything that might happen in real life.

But this is a parallel universe/altered reality. Who is to say that it goes nowhere? All bets are off now. Could it go on? Yes. Is it a better pairing that Spock/Saavik - on so many levels, yes! Actually Spock/Saavik creeped me out on many levels (age difference, professor/student).

 

[IndyJones]

Trek isn't about sex; it's about space exploration.

That's true, but sex comes up quite a bit. For this film we know that Kirk (and his parents), Spock (and Sarek and Amanda), Uhura, McCoy, Gaila, and Cupcake (presumably) were all heterosexual.

Quoting myself to add Nero and his wife to the list.

 

[superstring01]

I'm gay and would like to have seen some hint that Sulu was gay. Would have been appropriate. As long as it didn't come out to be some grand, flashy OUTTING, I would have been happy to see JJ Abrams take that little risk... and step. Though, in this movie it was all about building a loyal base. Maybe next time.

~String

 

[Trilliam]

I'm gay and would like to have seen some hint that Sulu was gay. Would have been appropriate. As long as it didn't come out to be some grand, flashy OUTTING, I would have been happy to see JJ Abrams take that little risk... and step. Though, in this movie it was all about building a loyal base. Maybe next time.

~String

Really, in all the work places I've been in since I started work (1979), there have been maybe 2 or 3 over-the-top overtly gay people. The rest, you wouldn't known unless they told you that they were gay. It's none of my business, just as my sexuality is none of theirs. Who any of us slept with, had/has nothing to do with the performance of our duties.

 

[Zeppster]

I'm gay and would like to have seen some hint that Sulu was gay. Would have been appropriate. As long as it didn't come out to be some grand, flashy OUTTING, I would have been happy to see JJ Abrams take that little risk... and step. Though, in this movie it was all about building a loyal base. Maybe next time.

~String

While George is gay, it's on screen that Sulu apparently wasn't gay since he had at least one daughter.

 

[Thestral]

Thing about Sulu is Demora. She doesn't exist yet in this universe (I assume), but I somehow doubt Nero affected Hikaru's sexuality, thus he can be bi, but not outright gay.

Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, obviously no. Scotty might have better luck (maybe that's where La Forge got his failure from, an engineer's thing?), but no. Leaves you with Chekov of the big seven. Pike (wouldn't that have been a blow to Yeoman Colt!) potentially?

Really though, the best would be for it to be noticably present at some point but have no more attention called to it than any other relationship, and a background character serves perfectly well.

 

[IndyJones]

Really, in all the work places I've been in since I started work (1979), there have been maybe 2 or 3 over-the-top overtly gay people. The rest, you wouldn't known unless they told you that they were gay. It's none of my business, just as my sexuality is none of theirs. Who any of us slept with, had/has nothing to do with the performance of our duties.

I don't think anyone here is saying that it does. But it was still relevant enough for at least 12 characters in this film to have heterosexual relationships. It comes up quite often.

 

[Zeppster]

There isn't really time to show relationships in an action/adventure movie. That's more for TV series. You can show more of freindships in movies. But the love connection type things are hard to do in 2 hour movies.

 

[Captain Fine]

I want Pike to admit to Kirk that he had a love affair with his father. Wouldn't that be twisted?

Seriously though I'd love it if Pike was gay, because he's just such an awesome respectable guy.

 

[Trilliam]

Really, in all the work places I've been in since I started work (1979), there have been maybe 2 or 3 over-the-top overtly gay people. The rest, you wouldn't known unless they told you that they were gay. It's none of my business, just as my sexuality is none of theirs. Who any of us slept with, had/has nothing to do with the performance of our duties.

I don't think anyone here is saying that it does. But it was still relevant enough for at least 12 characters in this film to have heterosexual relationships. It comes up quite often.

I still ask, if their off-duty relationships/activities (straight/gay/bi/ group) have no impact on their on-duty performance, why the devil does it matter?

 

[moogybaby]

Any good character's sexual orientation is anecdotal unless it has a material effect of moving a dramatic point forward.

Sexual orientation isn't irrelevant. Sexual orientation without benefit towards plot development in a time-limited media is.

 

[IndyJones]

Really, in all the work places I've been in since I started work (1979), there have been maybe 2 or 3 over-the-top overtly gay people. The rest, you wouldn't known unless they told you that they were gay. It's none of my business, just as my sexuality is none of theirs. Who any of us slept with, had/has nothing to do with the performance of our duties.

I don't think anyone here is saying that it does. But it was still relevant enough for at least 12 characters in this film to have heterosexual relationships. It comes up quite often.

I still ask, if their off-duty relationships/activities (straight/gay/bi/ group) have no impact on their on-duty performance, why the devil does it matter?

Because viewers like to be able to relate to the people they see on screen. People like to see others like them.

Listen, I don't really care one way or the other. I don't need to see a gay guy in a StarFleet uniform (or as a villian) to validate myself. All I was saying is that the writers found it relevant enough to make it clear that at least 12 people in the film had heterosexual relationships. You can make the argument that it's not important, but you can't argue how many direct references were already in the film.

The argument being made is that if they are going to include that many relationships that aren't relevant to on-duty performance, it shouldn't be hard to include one to a gay relationship.

There isn't really time to show relationships in an action/adventure movie. That's more for TV series. You can show more of freindships in movies. But the love connection type things are hard to do in 2 hour movies.

As noted earlier, this film had time to reference plenty...McCoy and his ex-wife. Mom and Dad Kirk. Jim Kirk and Gaila. Uhura and Spock. Nero and his wife. Sarek and Amanda. Cupcake.

Any good character's sexual orientation is anecdotal unless it has a material effect of moving a dramatic point forward.

Sexual orientation isn't irrelevant. Sexual orientation without benefit towards plot development in a time-limited media is.

Agreed. With the caveat that I would add character development as well. Learning about McCoy's divorce didn't advance the plot, but it was certainly worth the screen time.

 

[Zeppster]

Any good character's sexual orientation is anecdotal unless it has a material effect of moving a dramatic point forward.

Sexual orientation isn't irrelevant. Sexual orientation without benefit towards plot development in a time-limited media is.

Exactly. Especially in the format of movies.