Phase II: Blood and Fire Part 1 Released!! (SPOILERS)

[batboy853]

i'm sorry but i'm seen this episode many times and i love it.
the gayness was not over done if anything it was done with the "ok are going to try and walk on thin ice and see if it cracks" mentality.

Star Trek has always been about infinite diversities in infinite combinations.

that being said this is the next step, showing a same sex couple.

Now to through a bit of religion into this, and to use the "a-word"
in the United States we have been raised to fear differences, such as homosexuality because of the christian agenda. Where back in the days of the bible people got married because they could not control their animal instincts driving them to have sex. Today its because people love each other that they marry.

i have remembered hearing since i am only 20 that back in the day the uhura-kirk kiss was controversial because it was the first interracial kiss, and that episode almost didnt even air because of it.

I have also seen the episode with the first lesbian kiss, between dax and some chick. that was controversial but has been long forgotten cause its more normal for two women to show their affection for eachother so people didnt really think anything of it.

i think this episode so far has had a good message, and i remember hearing some where that it deals with a message similar to the aids issue thus the title blood and fire.

with that being said there should be an obvious thing that will happen in part 2: the fiance will die of the blood worm infection, and there will be no wedding but a sad ending thus the relationship story plot.

 

[batboy853]

oh and about the porn issue.
watch the CW and then you'll want to tear your eyes out cause all that channel is, is scenes like this.

hell all the episodes of galactica has worse scenes than this...
​

 

[Photoman15]

Oh, and what would have been the appropriate level of 'gayness'? None at all, I guess?

Let's not turn this into a straight/gay arguement.
The argument made was that the scene was too long, especially for a guest star and a glorified ND.

You haven't seen the other New Voyages-episodes?
Too long scenes for the guest characters is typical for them.

If I was watching the scene as is with my kids, it would be uncomfortable, gay or straight.

Don't kid yourself. You wouldn't.

Don't you dare to pretend you know how or what I think.

 

[Hoshi_Mayweather]

i have remembered hearing since i am only 20 that back in the day the uhura-kirk kiss was controversial because it was the first interracial kiss, and that episode almost didnt even air because of it.

That wasn't the first interracial kiss on Trek, nor on television.

Kirk kissed a character portrayed by an Asian woman in 'Elaan of Troyius.' Too, you can count Ricky and Lucy on 'I Love Lucy' and Khan and Lt. McGivers...(and I'm sure there are others).

It's just that Kirk (being a white male) and Uhura (being a black woman) made headlines due to the era in which it aired...

With that said, I applaud David Gerrold for bringing same sex couples into Trek.

Everyone should be allowed to do what makes them comfortable as long as they don't hurt anyone.

 

[NiteTrek]

So two guys seem to love each other and it's SICK, SICK!, but you're lusting after "hot looking extras".

Exactly! Because (male lusting after female) is in line with natural laws and does not violate it!

But...if you'd really like to hear my opinion on the whole "gay" thing, it's probable origin and the reason people are gay, feel free to start a thread someplace where it's allowed and I will try to explain my reasoning.

I promise to do it without personal attacks or deliberate insults, just a "theory" or "belief" that I have about it.

 

[Amaris]

So two guys seem to love each other and it's SICK, SICK!, but you're lusting after "hot looking extras".

Exactly! Because (male lusting after female) is in line with natural laws and does not violate it!

But...if you'd really like to hear my opinion on the whole "gay" thing, it's probable origin and the reason people are gay, feel free to start a thread someplace where it's allowed and I will try to explain my reasoning.

I promise to do it without personal attacks or deliberate insults, just a "theory" or "belief" that I have about it.

You can tell me what you believe in any thread, as for the "gay thing", I'm sorry but I've heard just about every reason in the book and it's been debated ad infinitum. I just found it more interesting that two guys who love one another is just SICK (your words), while lusting after "hot women extras" is way more reasonable and acceptable.


J.

 

[NiteTrek]

I just found it more interesting that two guys who love one another is just SICK (your words), while lusting after "hot women extras" is way more reasonable and acceptable.

Not as interesting as the male/female relationship of most species on this planet. We are 2 different sexes by design. Why aren't humans a single sex species? I don't drive my car in the lake because it wasn't designed for that.

Anyway...back to the episode....

Which came first the Copernicus or the Kelvin? The shuttlebay-on-top design is a new one. Did the Phase II folks borrow that concept from JJ?

 

[Mallory]

Anyway...back to the episode....

Excellent idea

 

[Captain Robert April]

Don't kid yourself. You wouldn't.

Don't you dare to pretend you know how or what I think.

But that's his main approach in these debates, that he knows your heart and mind better than you do.

I think having that NV Spock avatar for so long made him think he really is a Vulcan.

 

[Mallory]

Post, not poster please.

 

[Captain Robert April]

So two guys seem to love each other and it's SICK, SICK!, but you're lusting after "hot looking extras".

Exactly! Because (male lusting after female) is in line with natural laws and does not violate it!

But...if you'd really like to hear my opinion on the whole "gay" thing, it's probable origin and the reason people are gay, feel free to start a thread someplace where it's allowed and I will try to explain my reasoning.

I promise to do it without personal attacks or deliberate insults, just a "theory" or "belief" that I have about it.

Okay, even I'm not going down that rabbit hole. As far as "natural law" goes, I'll let someone else list all the various animals that exhibit homosexuality from time to time. Suffice it to say, it's a lengthy one.

Yes, there are some theories out there about why some people wind up homosexual, most have to do with the cause occurring in utero, with the fetus being dosed with testosterone or estrogen, thus setting up a preference one way or the other, yadda yadda yadda, the bottom line as far as I'm concerned is, "SO FRELLING WHAT!?!" The argument, "It's not normal" is pretty asinine in a group like this, where "normal" is, at best, a myth and is never something to be aspired to anyway.

Let's be honest, we're all weirdos, or we wouldn't be here in the first place!

Which brings us back to my initial assessment of the scene in question, before we got sidetracked by ST-One's utter lack of decorum...

I'm sure more than a few folks around here know that my politics tends to fall somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, but let me say that this story is long and shamefully overdue. I blame Roddenberry's lawyer, but that, again, is another subject.

There is, though, that matter of THE SCENE!!! (Cue music bit from "The Corbomite Maneuver", the one where the Fesarius arrives). Not the content, per se, but the staging of it. I'm not sure any real editing could be done without effectively gutting it, since all the dialogue is somewhat important, and it's not really the overall length of the scene. It has more to do with Freeman trying to get into Peter's jumper from the second he entered the room, which pretty much turned the entire four minute scene into a snogfest. Seriously, David, I've participated in orgies that were more subtle. Certainly Alex can show concern and affection for Peter without coming on from the get-go with an attitude of "C'mon, big boy, get nekkid and fuck me now!" At least he could've behaved himself until checking Peter's injury, and then started in with the kissyface. If nothing else, it would've kept the snogging in the last minute or so of the scene, which is a lot less awkward to watch, while still establishing the relationship and without sacrificing any pertinent information (and, let's be honest, be a lot more on par with the length of all the other love scenes we've seen in Star Trek to this point).

A good model to look at might be, ironically, the storyline they're running on "As The World Turns" with the gay characters; they're not really pulling any punches, and there's plenty of shirtless smooching for those so interested, but they also know where the line is, where if they cross it, folks start switching over to the Food Network.

So, from my standpoint, the only effective solution I see is reshooting the scene. Probably not bloody likely, but that's how I see it.

As others have pointed out, both here and elsewhere, no other love scene in Star Trek, with any gender combination, ever went on as long as this one did (before anyone jumps on this, a given scene doesn't become a "love scene" until the kissing/snuggling/_______ begins, and with this one, it starts up from the second Freeman enters and continues through the entirety of the scene, which makes it rather relentless). Between the length and the complete lack of music, it changes pretty quickly from sharing a tender moment between two characters who love each other to something a bit more voyeuristic, and that's when it becomes disturbing, when the viewer gets the distinct feeling that he's now intruding on something and can't quite find the exit. Adding some music might mitigate this a bit, but Freeman's coming in with an expression akin to a starving dog looking at a fresh Porterhouse steak still makes the whole thing awkward.

And no, I don't think I'd feel all that differently if it was a m/f couple, because the dynamics are still the same. Person A is trying to talk about something that's bothering him, Person B is so incessantly horny that it's still an open question if he's even listening. Many a sitcom scenario have been kicked off with the deflating of a horny mate by the question of, "Are you even listening to me?"

Like I said, there's plenty of room for Alex to be playful and affectionate without going into "Drop those pants and TAKE ME HARD!!" territory. And it also neatly avoids the agenda-pushing arguments by not going over the top. If anything, underplaying it would make the bigger statement, because then it's not calling attention to itself. As it stands, there's still an air of "HEY, LOOK AT THE GAY GUYS! AREN'T WE PROGRESSIVE!!?"

Underplay it, like it's no big deal, and you make a much bigger statement. Namely, that it's no big deal. Like on "I Spy". A deliberate move was made to not make a big deal out of Robert Culp being best buds with Bill Cosby, deflating the racial arguments from the get-go.

Now, how long before ST-One starts twisting this into a gay bashing post?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Not as interesting as the male/female relationship of most species on this planet. We are 2 different sexes by design. Why aren't humans a single sex species?

Asking rhetorical questions doesn't actually pass well for wisdom, but that said there are all kinds of tricky ones. Such as:

Why does homosexual behavior occur among thousands of species other than humans on this planet?

That question's always problematic, I know, so the attempted rebuttal generally involves denial.

 

[batboy853]

Not as interesting as the male/female relationship of most species on this planet. We are 2 different sexes by design. Why aren't humans a single sex species? I don't drive my car in the lake because it wasn't designed for that.

actually most go either way as was stated.

now going back to the scene i actually kinda thought that it was cute, and had some humorous moments, with the awkwardness of xon and then there is always the sulu joke.

 

[Maurice]

We are 2 different sexes by design.

No, that presumes a designer. As an atheist, I reject that utterly. We're two different sexes by the on going mechanism of natural selection.

I don't drive my car in the lake because it wasn't designed for that.

And mouths aren't designed or evolved for oral sex, and most men would certainly not want to stop THAT practice because it's not "natural" or what the equipment's adapted for.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Since the discussion about Homosexuality continues to be wildly off Topic in Fan Productions, I'd just like to remind everyone of the existence of Misc, where such (civil) debates are always welcome.

 

[ST-One]

Which brings us back to my initial assessment of the scene in question, before we got sidetracked by ST-One's utter lack of decorum...

Now, how long before ST-One starts twisting this into a gay bashing post?

Perhaps, your post would be viewed, read and responded to with a little more respect if you wouldn't act like a pompous ass all the time.


Oh, and to answer your question: Read on.

Like I said, there's plenty of room for Alex to be playful and affectionate without going into "Drop those pants and TAKE ME HARD!!" territory. And it also neatly avoids the agenda-pushing arguments by not going over the top. If anything, underplaying it would make the bigger statement, because then it's not calling attention to itself. As it stands, there's still an air of "HEY, LOOK AT THE GAY GUYS! AREN'T WE PROGRESSIVE!!?"

Yes, they are a gay couple. So what?
Is it progressive to show a gay couple? Today? Probably not anymore.
Is it reactionary to whine about the fact that a gay couple is shown? Yeah, you betcha!

Why do you have such a problem with the sexual teasing of the scene? It's at least done in a much more adult way than most other such scenes in the history of Trek (since TNG and onwards).

 

[ST-One]

Since the discussion about Homosexuality continues to be wildly off Topic in Fan Productions, I'd just like to remind everyone of the existence of Misc, where such (civil) debates are always welcome.

It's part of this episode. You can't divorce that one elment from the rest of the discussion on this episode.
Or are we now supposed to take discussions about, say, cloning in 'Nemesis' to MISC, since that is a loaded topic too?

 

[USS Intrepid]

We are 2 different sexes by design.

No, that presumes a designer. As an atheist, I reject that utterly. We're two different sexes by the on going mechanism of natural selection.

Precisely. Homosexuality is natural, as in part of nature. It is part of the human tapestry. Those who believe otherwise are no better than the people who believed the Earth was flat.

And mouths aren't designed or evolved for oral sex, and most men would certainly not want to stop THAT practice because it's not "natural" or what the equipment's adapted for.

This answer should go down in the annals of Trek BBS history.

Although maybe "go down" was a poor turn of phrase.

 

[Photoman15]

We are 2 different sexes by design.

No, that presumes a designer. As an atheist, I reject that utterly. We're two different sexes by the on going mechanism of natural selection.

Precisely. Homosexuality is natural, as in part of nature. It is part of the human tapestry. Those who believe otherwise are no better than the people who believed the Earth was flat.

No it's not "normal", no matter how accepted it's become. Now I'm going to make a statement, but I am NOT comparing the two 1:1, it's just to make a point: In nature (everyday life), offspring are born with some sort of handicap (I'm not saying gay is a handicap), be it blind, no brain, etc... . Is it normal? no. It is natural, because it happens in nature.

I'm sorry to all you atheists out there, but I believe in "intelligent design". The body parts were made for specific purposes. The oral sex remark above, well it's a substitute for vaginal sex. It feels almost the same without the fear of procreating. Just look at any higher function body part, the eye, for example. Assuming we started as single-cell organisms, why (and how) did the first eye develop? Why did a single cell organism floating around some water need an eye? Look at the intricacies of it. Rods, cones, nerves, fluids, lens all working together so you can read this. And that's just one part of a body. Somebody or some thing had to design these systems. But, that's my opinion.

 

[USS Intrepid]

No it's not "normal", no matter how accepted it's become. Now I'm going to make a statement, but I am NOT comparing the two 1:1, it's just to make a point: In nature (everyday life), offspring are born with some sort of handicap (I'm not saying gay is a handicap), be it blind, no brain, etc... . Is it normal? no. It is natural, because it happens in nature.

I'm sorry to all you atheists out there, but I believe in "intelligent design". The body parts were made for specific purposes. The oral sex remark above, well it's a substitute for vaginal sex. It feels almost the same without the fear of procreating. Just look at any higher function body part, the eye, for example. Assuming we started as single-cell organisms, why (and how) did the first eye develop? Why did a single cell organism floating around some water need an eye? Look at the intricacies of it. Rods, cones, nerves, fluids, lens all working together so you can read this. And that's just one part of a body. Somebody or some thing had to design these systems. But, that's my opinion.

That's a common ID (creationism repackaged) stance; you can't grasp it, so it's wrong. I won't bother derailing the thread by rebutting your comments about evolution, but if you were in any way interested, you could have already googled the answers to that argument within about five minutes. Somehow I doubt you want to.

Suffice to say, science does not agree with you. The facts do not agree with you. And that's really as much as I want to say on the matter.