NuTrek: A homosexual's perspective

[SpokOdo]

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 agree. The new film had Kirk in bed with Gaila, and Uhura and Spock sharing a private moment as well. Obviously it does matter what consenting adults are doing during their off-duty time in Star Trek.

I don't want to see Sulu made gay just because Takei is gay. Seems kind of a silly rationale. Plus, we know about Demora, although he could be bi. Since I've heard it speculated the new Chekov might be a different person than the original Chekov, as he is four years older, he might be a possibility. We know so little about him.

Otherwise, unless he/she is the main villain of the next film, there's not a lot of room for a gay character in the cast. Would gay Star Trek fans be open to the first major gay Star Trek character being a bad guy. Hard to say. Extras and red shirts aren't important enough to get backstories one way or another, so if we are to see a gay character in the next film, it has to be one of the relatively important characters.

If they ever get around to doing a new series with new characters, including a gay character in the main cast would be the best way to go.

 

[Zeppster]

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 that 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.

You can reference some, that's pretty easy to do, but there was really only one relationship shown. Well 2 if you count the one night stand with the green girl that ended up dead. The Uhura Spock one.

 

[Trilliam]

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.

12 out of a cadet academy of how many? 12 out of a ship's company of how many? Like I said in response to a thead about the lack of sex shown either in the tv shows or movies - I don't need to be shown/told that it happened/happens - I took it as understood that relationships (straigh or gay) were happening, if they were relevant to a story, we'd see it. If not relevent to moving a story forward, well that's just titillation. But I'm an old fogey.

Maybe it's a cultural thing (I do after all live it the home city of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras), that I don't see the problem.

 

[Thestral]

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.

Err... Cupcake? Really?

George/Winona and Sarek/Lady Amanda are kinda bad examples also... their existence is predicated on the fact that they are Jim and Spock's biological parents.

Problem I've since come up with re:Pike; The Cage shows for us his very plain attraction to women. So there's that idea.

I had toyed with writing about the idea of using a joined Trill cameo to make a point about it being all just people especially once you've been both, but that's not really what people are asking for here...

 

[moogybaby]

The issue that we're dealing with here is the depiction of a character whose orientation is behavioural, versus one whose depiction is racial/ethnic.

An African/American, a Russian, a Japanese/American are distinctive by physical/vocal characteristics. Depicting a homosexual is inherently different as, until there's a situation where their sexual proclivities are important to the plot, it comes off as pandering.

How do you depict a "gay" character without resorting to a stereotype- without including a scene where their orientation is material?

If one's position is that being gay makes you no different from the next guy- other than favoritism in your choice of private parts- then by making overt implication about a gay character, you're insisting that he/she is different.

Which is dilutive of the impact.

 

[Civil Shadow]

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.

Yeah...no. The Star Trek fandom has its honorary gay characters. Hooboy, does it ever. Fan films, books and the like...but that's not the path a casual fan walks.

The TV/movie franchise itself, the thing that the casual viewers equate to Trek, has a few bisexual (and alternate reality) villains and Dax meeting up with an ex.

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.

Or...they could stay together happily ever after except for the trials that test their relationship - trials that they overcome and cause them to grow in character. But if TPTB do feel the need to bust up the relationship...it's an AU and they can do that. See Kirk's dead dad and Spock's dead mum. They're dead. Star Trek IV shows one of them being not as dead as she is now.

I hope they don't break up up Spock/Uhura for the sake of breaking them up, though. It's new and fascinating and HAWT.

(Maybe Kirk can play too, and they can live in happy, healthy polygamy. I know I'm dreaming, shh.)

 

[Trilliam]

(Maybe Kirk can play too, and they can live in happy, healthy polygamy. I know I'm dreaming, shh.)

A little bit of polyandry would be interesting

Of course the down side of polygamy/polyandry - multiple sets of in-laws.

 

[SpokOdo]

The issue that we're dealing with here is the depiction of a character whose orientation is behavioural, versus one whose depiction is racial/ethnic.

An African/American, a Russian, a Japanese/American are distinctive by physical/vocal characteristics. Depicting a homosexual is inherently different as, until there's a situation where their sexual proclivities are important to the plot, it comes off as pandering.

How do you depict a "gay" character without resorting to a stereotype- without including a scene where their orientation is material?

If one's position is that being gay makes you no different from the next guy- other than favoritism in your choice of private parts- then by making overt implication about a gay character, you're insisting that he/she is different.

Which is dilutive of the impact.

All excellent points. The film has established itself an its characters, and just wants to get on with the adventure. Gay viewers are not looking to Star Trek films for validation, they just want to be entertained like they rest of us.

Which is why the best bet is the next tv series. I really hope they don't miss the chance next time around. After forty years of Star Trek, one wonders where all the gays went. I can bump into gays every week at the grocery story but I can't see one gay couple couple in ten-forward? It isn't my number one concern or anything, but one starts to notice when one aspect of the show doesn't reflect the world one lives in. I can't help but wonder if something can be done about it.

 

[Sector 7]

I don't want to see Sulu made gay just because Takei is gay. Seems kind of a silly rationale... If they ever get around to doing a new series with new characters, including a gay character in the main cast would be the best way to go.

This has also been my thought. Sulu is not the one to choose since he has the daughter. A character could have an "at home" scene, such as a male at home with his male mate. Many scenes showed the O'Briens at home, and off duty, talking about events as they occured.

How do you depict a "gay" character without resorting to a stereotype- without including a scene where their orientation is material?

See my comments above re: the O'Briens.

 

[moogybaby]

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?

I don't want to see Sulu made gay just because Takei is gay. Seems kind of a silly rationale... If they ever get around to doing a new series with new characters, including a gay character in the main cast would be the best way to go.

This has also been my thought. Sulu is not the one to choose since he has the daughter. A character could have an "at home" scene, such as a male at home with his male mate. Many scenes showed the O'Briens at home, and off duty, talking about events as they occured.

How do you depict a "gay" character without resorting to a stereotype- without including a scene where their orientation is material?

See my comments above re: the O'Briens.

But, unfortunately, we're dealing with NuTrek as a movie (potentially movie series) where the time for the long form open exposition that the O'Briens indulged in, can't be afforded.

Were nuTrek to be established as a weekly episodic medium, you might have a point.

But in the current format (i.e. movies), it's wholly unviolable.

Tom

 

[Sector 7]

Were nuTrek to be established as a weekly episodic medium, you might have a point.

But in the current format (i.e. movies), it's wholly unviolable.

Tom

On that point I agree with you. Perhaps I did not make it clear, but a series format is the best way to deal with it. In the time constraint of the movie format, it could be done, but the execution would probably look too contrived.

 

[IndyJones]

I don't want to see Sulu made gay just because Takei is gay. Seems kind of a silly rationale... If they ever get around to doing a new series with new characters, including a gay character in the main cast would be the best way to go.

This has also been my thought. Sulu is not the one to choose since he has the daughter. A character could have an "at home" scene, such as a male at home with his male mate. Many scenes showed the O'Briens at home, and off duty, talking about events as they occured.

I don't need Sulu to be gay just because Takei is, but what's stopping Sulu and his husband from adopting a daughter?

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.

Err... Cupcake? Really?

Sure. You don't think the implication was that Cupcake was attracted to Uhura, and that's why he interrupted Kirk's conversation with her? It's not an absolute given, which is why I put presumably in my initial post, but it's certainly the most likely motivation.

And as I stated above, there's no reason why one of these characters can't have gay adoptive parents. I certainly don't want them to replace the characters that we already know, but there's plenty we don't know...

George/Winona and Sarek/Lady Amanda are kinda bad examples also... their existence is predicated on the fact that they are Jim and Spock's biological parents.

I'd hardly call them bad examples. They are perfect examples of how pervasive heterosexuality is in these films. It was stated above that in a two hour movie there isn't time for such relationships, but that's patently false. We know about McCoy's based off of ten seconds of dialogue that didn't advance the plot but did get a laugh.

 

[Captain Fine]

What I really don't want is another bisexual female or a flamey male. If they have a gay male character, I'd prefer he be played by a straight actor. Preferably goodlooking and masculine.

 

[moogybaby]

Were nuTrek to be established as a weekly episodic medium, you might have a point.

But in the current format (i.e. movies), it's wholly unviolable.

Tom

On that point I agree with you. Perhaps I did not make it clear, but a series format is the best way to deal with it. In the time constraint of the movie format, it could be done, but the execution would probably look too contrived.

On this we are agreed. To toss it out there in a filmic (non-episodic) context would be pandering to a demographic, not a respectful depiction- unless material to the plot.

Peace.

Tom

 

[IndyJones]

What I really don't want is another bisexual female or a flamey male. If they have a gay male character, I'd prefer he be played by a straight actor. Preferably goodlooking and masculine.

 

[Captain Fine]

What I really don't want is another bisexual female or a flamey male. If they have a gay male character, I'd prefer he be played by a straight actor. Preferably goodlooking and masculine.

What?

 

[Trilliam]

What I really don't want is another bisexual female or a flamey male. If they have a gay male character, I'd prefer he be played by a straight actor. Preferably goodlooking and masculine.

Have a cold shower. The shower is down the hall, 3rd door on the left, fresh towels are in the cupboard under the sink. .

 

[moogybaby]

What I really don't want is another bisexual female or a flamey male. If they have a gay male character, I'd prefer he be played by a straight actor. Preferably goodlooking and masculine.

What?

Stay on target...

 

[Captain Fine]

We are talking about homosexual characters in Trek. I'm stating my preference for what I'd like to see. We've already had enough lesbian/bi action in Trek. What about some actual gay content. And I don't mean someone like Lt. Hawk who it was never stated on-screen that he was gay.

I just don't want a Jack from Will & Grace in space. It would just seem utterly ridiculous to have a lisping limp-wristed queen in space. But that's just me. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

 

[Sector 7]

What I really don't want is another bisexual female or a flamey male. If they have a gay male character, I'd prefer he be played by a straight actor. Preferably goodlooking and masculine.

What?

Believe it or not, I think I agree with RegentWorf in principle. No girly gay stereotypes for me either. However, there are plenty of gay male actors who could play the part without coming across as girly/flaming/swishy/etc.

EDIT: RegentWorf, you beat me to the punch. I need to learn to type faster.