• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

NuTrek: A homosexual's perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
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. :D

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.

I think the diverse audience the film is attracting this time around would dwindle appreciably if they left all the romance to people's imaginations, as most moviegoers don't spend time on such imaginings in the same way hardcore fans do. The Spock/Uhura romance has obviously clicked with a segment of the audience and there is no reason to dispense with it. They seemed to know just how much and in what ways to use it in this film, so there is no reason to be concerned if it continues, which I expect it will.

That said, I wouldn't mind at all if they hinted that Chekov, let's say, were gay or bisexual, or if they introduced a new character who happened to be gay.
 
That said, I wouldn't mind at all if they hinted that Chekov, let's say, were gay or bisexual, or if they introduced a new character who happened to be gay.

Yes, he is the only one of the main characters they could turn gay.
Although I would prefer Pike to be gay (if only his character's sexuality hadn't been established in 'The Cage'/'The Menagerie'...)
 
Well, a person does not change their sexual orientation with age. It's like eye color; you're born with it. And he was really into Irina.
 
Well, a person does not change their sexual orientation with age. It's like eye color; you're born with it. And he was really into Irina.

Of course.
But wasn't his age (his year of birth) changed so that the character could even be in the movie?
 
ST-One, I don't think that age would matter to the character. My choice would be Sulu. I think he's a good fit.

There was never an instance in the normal TOS reality when he showed a preference for female companionship. The only time he mashed on Uhura was in Mirror, Mirror.

To me, the mirror universe is a good enough rationalization to alter his sexuality. So I could see an ordinary, workaday homosexual guy in Sulu.

John Cho would have an opportunity to distinguish his character that way; it would be a nice little job to do. His character was not distinguished particularly in the movie, not even the way that George Takei managed to make him fiery.

I always remember TOS Sulu standing up to his superiors in the conference room, over the Romulan neutral zone standoff. He turned to them and quipped, "...and if they could say they destroyed us?"

Cho's Sulu is still pretty much blank. It would be cool, IMO.
 
ST-One, I don't think that age would matter to the character. My choice would be Sulu. I think he's a good fit.

Of course his age doesn't matter.
But this Chekov was conceived four years earlier than the one we know. He IS a different person already.
 
ST-One, I don't think that age would matter to the character. My choice would be Sulu. I think he's a good fit.

Of course his age doesn't matter.
But this Chekov was conceived four years earlier than the one we know. He IS a different person already.
If he were a different person, he wouldn't be Chekov. He'd be somebody else.

They patterned him after Chekov, who has a clear preference for females. Sulu does not.
 
What's with all the "them vs. us" ? Bleeding Christ. I never got why this subject has people tearing each other to shreds anyway. I don't care either way; if romance is done well, it doesn't matter who's involved, it'll be a good romance.

I'm with you.
The problem is (as evidenced by Phase II's Peter Kirk - who is a regular on that show now) that certain people always see anything even remotely homosexual as 'shoving it down our throats'.


Okay I'm not gay, but even so this is something that really annoys me. Sure, romance often gets slammed for being tacky and over-the-top and what have you.... but when it's homosexual, you won't have time to count to three before someone comes up and goes on about tptb "shoving it down our throats". Honestly.

We'll have evolved the day when people stop caring about other people's sexuality, taking into consideration onlythe credibility of the pairing itself. Like Spock/Uhura: people keep complaining about that one, but nobody would say "meh, look at that, the writers shoving hetero-sexuality down our throats".
 
What's with all the "them vs. us" ? Bleeding Christ. I never got why this subject has people tearing each other to shreds anyway. I don't care either way; if romance is done well, it doesn't matter who's involved, it'll be a good romance.

I'm with you.
The problem is (as evidenced by Phase II's Peter Kirk - who is a regular on that show now) that certain people always see anything even remotely homosexual as 'shoving it down our throats'.


Okay I'm not gay, but even so this is something that really annoys me. Sure, romance often gets slammed for being tacky and over-the-top and what have you.... but when it's homosexual, you won't have time to count to three before someone comes up and goes on about tptb "shoving it down our throats". Honestly.

We'll have evolved the day when people stop caring about other people's sexuality, taking into consideration onlythe credibility of the pairing itself. Like Spock/Uhura: people keep complaining about that one, but nobody would say "meh, look at that, the writers shoving hetero-sexuality down our throats".

Actually, although they don't say it in so many words, some of the K/S folks are implying that the Spock/Uhura romance is undermining the way they imagine these characters.

But I agree with you. There is the practical issue, though, of wanting the film series to have continued success. I don't think you could make Kirk or Spock gay and do that. But, another character? Yes. I think you could, as long as it was presented as subtly as Spock/Uhura.
 
What's with all the "them vs. us" ? Bleeding Christ. I never got why this subject has people tearing each other to shreds anyway. I don't care either way; if romance is done well, it doesn't matter who's involved, it'll be a good romance.

I'm with you.
The problem is (as evidenced by Phase II's Peter Kirk - who is a regular on that show now) that certain people always see anything even remotely homosexual as 'shoving it down our throats'.


Okay I'm not gay, but even so this is something that really annoys me. Sure, romance often gets slammed for being tacky and over-the-top and what have you.... but when it's homosexual, you won't have time to count to three before someone comes up and goes on about tptb "shoving it down our throats". Honestly.

We'll have evolved the day when people stop caring about other people's sexuality, taking into consideration only the credibility of the pairing itself. Like Spock/Uhura: people keep complaining about that one, but nobody would say "meh, look at that, the writers shoving hetero-sexuality down our throats".
We may get there some day, but we've got a way to go, yet. It has been doing a little better in this forum than counting to three -- we've actually managed to have a fair bit of rational discussion first, the last few go-'rounds -- but these threads always seem to end up going the same way, eventually. I don't get either why there needs to be this "them or us" about it (as if the notion of "peaceful coexistence" is a fantasy fit only for old television shows) but there remain among us those (on both sides of the issue) for whom it is apparently very important that it be so.


I'm closing this for review and discussion, and for a bit of cooling-off time. The thread did seem to be recovering somewhat, but that's often temporary, at best. I can't say for sure at this moment whether it's going to continue, but watch this space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top