If, by that, you mean married (to a woman)... yeah. He's married, strait.
Phase II Blood and Fire Part 2 Grading and Commentary
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
If, by that, you mean married (to a woman)... yeah. He's married, strait.
Sorry everyone....did not mean to take this thread off-track.
Thankfully Star Trek (and episodes like Blood and Fire) help to combat narrow-minded prejudices like those communicated by NiteTrek in this thread. I guess any "tendencies" which he doesn't experience are deemed "unnatural" by him. Of course, homosexuality is not a "tendency", but I am not going to try and convince this closed-minded bigot.
He reminds me of a previous poster on here by the name of LightInspire -- perhaps this is the same person back in a new guise of hate?
Anyway, I will not post on this topic in this thread again...let's get on with discussing the awesome work of the Phase II crew!
Thankfully Star Trek (and episodes like Blood and Fire) help to combat narrow-minded prejudices like those communicated by NiteTrek in this thread. I guess any "tendencies" which he doesn't experience are deemed "unnatural" by him. Of course, homosexuality is not a "tendency", but I am not going to try and convince this closed-minded bigot.
He reminds me of a previous poster on here by the name of LightInspire -- perhaps this is the same person back in a new guise of hate?
Anyway, I will not post on this topic in this thread again...let's get on with discussing the awesome work of the Phase II crew!
You failed miserably by responding to an old post and your agenda is obvious.
Oh yeah, I'm a bigot when I express my opinion but everything is fine and dandy when people like you wave their "flag of choice" and demand that everyone accept them. Always having to make a statement to draw attention to yourselves.
I don't like to eat tacos either, but if I express my opinion about it, that makes me a bigot too, I guess.
I HATE TACOS! I HATE TACOS! I HATE TACOS!
Don't you have a parade to go to?
So any update on when the final sound will be ready for Part 2?
How old are you, thirteen? Learn how to make a logical analogy, Junior, and then we can have have a proper debate.
My big beef with the episode is that it's so padded. It could easily have been a taut one hour story, but it's puffed up with pointless scenes and overlong conversations to stretch it out to two parts. The whole thing just slogs, and virtually every scene is too long and drawn out. The Klingon plot is a pointless bore. Too bad, because there's a good story in there, but it's spread too thin.
And, really, "sparkle dancers"? It sounds like a line of girls toys.
Hoping Kitumba kicks butt, though!
And, really, "sparkle dancers"? It sounds like a line of girls toys.
Hoping Kitumba kicks butt, though!
Really? When did I call heterosexuality "unnatural" as in "not occurring in nature"? Since both homosexuality and heterosexuality both occur *in nature* then by definition neither are unnatural. Therefore, only someone who personally has a problem with either would suggest one or the other was "unnatural". Since I do not have a problem with either, or would suggest they are unnatural, I do not see how I could be considered "heterophobic."
Now if you called me bigotophobic, or moronophobic, you might have a point.
Last edited:
I'm allergic to stupid.
Completely off-topic, but DS9Sega, I love your new avatar.
Way to hit the ad hominem -- dismiss the complainer instead of the complaint. You told him, didn't ya?
For the record, I agree that it was way too long. The whole thing with the Klingons felt... well, added in, as the sets actors and costumes were available. I think it could have well worked out without them, and been a much tighter, shorter, and possibly better production.
It was still good, though.
The argument can be made that this episode dances on the line between being inclusive and waving the rainbow flag in everybody's faces. Further, another argument can be made that maybe, after twenty-odd years of an unfulfilled promise by Roddenberry to show gays on the Enterprise, a little flag waving might be in order.
Whatever the case, there is room for criticism, but that criticism should really only extend to the episode itself; the premise that a good deal of the episode hangs on, that gays are a real part of society, have loving, committed relationships, and can serve in the military alongside everyone else, is pretty unassailable, since that very thing has gone on throughout history, regardless of society's approval or disapproval.
Something the more ardent backers of this episode should realize, though, is that there is room for criticism regarding how the story, and its inherent moral message, is delivered. Is it being a little heavy handed? Is the protrayal of Peter Kirk and Freeman crossing the line between "look, a couple of kids in love" to "LOOKEE!! WE GOT GAYS!! LOOK AT HOW ENLIGHTENED WE ARE, YOU PEA-BRAINED NEANDERTHALS!!"
Keep in mind that both sides of this issue can be a bit sensitive to criticism. Gays see themselves as a persecuted minority (which they are, although most of those persecutions are a matter of history, not current practice), while straights, especially straight while males, are a little weary of being denounced by every other group on the planet for being to blame for every societal ill, both real and imagined. Blowback on both sides is to be expected.
So, in the interests in civility, how about EVERYBODY dial it back a few notches, 'kay?
Whatever the case, there is room for criticism, but that criticism should really only extend to the episode itself; the premise that a good deal of the episode hangs on, that gays are a real part of society, have loving, committed relationships, and can serve in the military alongside everyone else, is pretty unassailable, since that very thing has gone on throughout history, regardless of society's approval or disapproval.
Something the more ardent backers of this episode should realize, though, is that there is room for criticism regarding how the story, and its inherent moral message, is delivered. Is it being a little heavy handed? Is the protrayal of Peter Kirk and Freeman crossing the line between "look, a couple of kids in love" to "LOOKEE!! WE GOT GAYS!! LOOK AT HOW ENLIGHTENED WE ARE, YOU PEA-BRAINED NEANDERTHALS!!"
Keep in mind that both sides of this issue can be a bit sensitive to criticism. Gays see themselves as a persecuted minority (which they are, although most of those persecutions are a matter of history, not current practice), while straights, especially straight while males, are a little weary of being denounced by every other group on the planet for being to blame for every societal ill, both real and imagined. Blowback on both sides is to be expected.
So, in the interests in civility, how about EVERYBODY dial it back a few notches, 'kay?
I'm not sure this episode "waves the flag" so much. When I first heard the plot, I expected the episode to end with Kirk giving a big speech about how universal love is and stuff like that. Instead, he tries to become part of his nephew's life by sharing his grief, a pretty universal concept.
Also, I don't think the love scenes were over the top, either. No more than serious kissing and saying "I love you," really. Again, I thought there'd be more obvious love taking place. And the line about Sulu was a hoot.
The biggest problem I had with it being a two-parter was how long it took to produce both parts. I know fan films are labors of love and require effort above and beyond the call of duty, but I may have been spoiled by seeing a rough cut at a convention about a year and a half in advance of the final release. Not that I'm complaining about that, you understand.
Still, I greatly enjoyed the end product and could probably go in with a knife and cut out all kinds of scenes, but I don't know how much that would improve "Blood and Fire." Let the chips fall where they may, but I wound up having a good time watching it, and I thought it was a good idea to release part of the next story at the same time. Such is life, I guess.
Captain Robert April Said: Keep in mind that both sides of this issue can be a bit sensitive to criticism. Gays see themselves as a persecuted minority (which they are, although most of those persecutions are a matter of history, not current practice), while straights, especially straight while males, are a little weary of being denounced by every other group on the planet for being to blame for every societal ill, both real and imagined. Blowback on both sides is to be expected.
(No, I don't know how to use multiquote, I just tried).
Given that a gay man was beaten within an inch of his life in the last three months in NYC, which is probably more tolerant than most places... I don't see this as historical. On the other hand, I have to say I have little sympathy for the choice of the political leadership of the gay community to repeatedly act as if their allies are their enemies because their allies felt, rightly as it turns out, that calling the rights they asked for "marriage" instead of "civil unions" would lead to their defeat, while they could have had a triumph. I have grown weary of being called anti-gay for simply evaluating the current political climate correctly.
If the gay leadership had gone for civil unions, instead of over 30 defeats they probably would be looking at over 30 victories, and they would actually have the rights they have been seeking. Instead, they get to call me the enemy, and refuse to vote for people who would like to give them the rights they want, because those people are 'no different' than the people who would outlaw sodomy and throw them in jail. Juvenile, a little?
Captain Randy Hall wrote: Still, I greatly enjoyed the end product and could probably go in with a knife and cut out all kinds of scenes, but I don't know how much that would improve "Blood and Fire." Let the chips fall where they may, but I wound up having a good time watching it, and I thought it was a good idea to release part of the next story at the same time. Such is life, I guess.
Actually, as I understand it from Patty at Phase II, it's not in final form. In fact, I am waiting to watch it because I want my review to be based on a first viewing in final form.
(No, I don't know how to use multiquote, I just tried).
Given that a gay man was beaten within an inch of his life in the last three months in NYC, which is probably more tolerant than most places... I don't see this as historical. On the other hand, I have to say I have little sympathy for the choice of the political leadership of the gay community to repeatedly act as if their allies are their enemies because their allies felt, rightly as it turns out, that calling the rights they asked for "marriage" instead of "civil unions" would lead to their defeat, while they could have had a triumph. I have grown weary of being called anti-gay for simply evaluating the current political climate correctly.
If the gay leadership had gone for civil unions, instead of over 30 defeats they probably would be looking at over 30 victories, and they would actually have the rights they have been seeking. Instead, they get to call me the enemy, and refuse to vote for people who would like to give them the rights they want, because those people are 'no different' than the people who would outlaw sodomy and throw them in jail. Juvenile, a little?
Captain Randy Hall wrote: Still, I greatly enjoyed the end product and could probably go in with a knife and cut out all kinds of scenes, but I don't know how much that would improve "Blood and Fire." Let the chips fall where they may, but I wound up having a good time watching it, and I thought it was a good idea to release part of the next story at the same time. Such is life, I guess.
Actually, as I understand it from Patty at Phase II, it's not in final form. In fact, I am waiting to watch it because I want my review to be based on a first viewing in final form.
Actually, this straight white male doesn't really care - straight white males, as a group, really are the most thin-skinned and whiny people in America.
Last edited:
Captain Robert April -- There are definitely two sides here (as is the case for every issue.) I am far from being a radical (I have never marched in a parade) --- however, I am gay and I can assure you that persecution against gays is not simply historical. Persecution is what kept me in the closet until age 33. Persecution against gays happens far too often, every day. I also realize that some people view "Blood and Fire" as having gone "too far" in depicting a loving, real, gay relationship. Personally, I feel that the physical connection shown between the two male characters was far tamer than the heterosexual displays of affection that we have typically seen depicted on Trek.
Barbreader -- I am not a member of the "gay leadership" nor do I want to be. However, I am grateful that I am a Canadian citizen and my marriage is recognized under the law here as having equal legal stature to a heterosexual marriage. Why should gays not be allowed to be married? Why should they need to settle for the term "civil unions"? I have been married to my husband for five years --- calling it a civil union rather than a marriage would not be a "triumph" from my perspective.
Barbreader -- I am not a member of the "gay leadership" nor do I want to be. However, I am grateful that I am a Canadian citizen and my marriage is recognized under the law here as having equal legal stature to a heterosexual marriage. Why should gays not be allowed to be married? Why should they need to settle for the term "civil unions"? I have been married to my husband for five years --- calling it a civil union rather than a marriage would not be a "triumph" from my perspective.
Last edited:
The difference being that when such persecution happens nowadays, it's recognized for the obscenity that it is, instead of the business-as-usual that it used to be, just like while there were lynchings after the Civil Rights Act of '64, it was seen as the despicable act it was, not just another day in Dixie. There's always gonna be the knuckle draggers, but the tide has turned against them (it's what I mean by "having the conversation"; the matters are discussed, attitudes are changed, and society grows up a little, but there's no accounting for the Luddites).
I can't speak to Canadian society, but for American society, things can be pretty involved, because the traditions can run pretty deep in certain areas, especially in the South and out west.
For one thing, protections against beatings and discrimination in employment and renting, etc., is simply reinforcing laws against acts that are already patently illegal and immoral on their face. Marriage, on the other hand, isn't exactly a quantifiable right. There are a number of rights and priveledges that have been accorded marriages in order to promote marriage, for various reasons (not the least of which is to promote birthrates, in order to maintain a viable population base) but that doesn't mean marriage, in and of itself, is a right, just a traditional family model that society has seen fit to promote by according it all sorts of goodies.
So, to better define the terms here, marriage is a long held traditional practice, mainly religious in nature. Not necessarily in all cases, but the foundations are still primarily religious in nature.
Because of this traditional, religious nature of conventional marriage, it's not even close to the same realm as equal employment rights or the right to not get your head bashed in because of the bar you choose to go to. You've got to look long and hard to find someone who thinks it's still okay to beat the crap out of someone solely on the basis of the color of their skin or who they sleep with, but when it comes to who should be allowed to get married, it's not as tough a search. You're going head-to-head against one of the fundamental core tenets of Judeo-Christian civilization, the sanctity of the family unit. And in this particular debate, there is no accommodation, no compromise, no middle ground, so long as the word "marriage" is included. It comes down to raw numbers, and guess who has 'em? It ain't the gay rights community.
Case in point: The Amendment 8 battle in California, and the gay community's complete misread of their standing and chances. To put it simply, WHAT THE HELL DID YOU PEOPLE EXPECT THE MORMONS TO DO!?! YOU'RE ONLY ASSAULTING THEIR WHOLE REASON FOR BEING!! DID YOU HONESTLY EXPECT THEM TO SIT BY AND WATCH YOU UNDERMINE THEIR ENTIRE WAY OF LIFE!?!
It's that kind of complete lack of understanding of their opponents, as well as the utter lack of respect I've seen more often that not for those who aren't four-square in favor of full-on same-sex marriage, that is gonna result in this issue going nowhere, at best, and possibly setting back the whole gay rights agenda back at worst.
My understanding is that the only thing left to do on Part 2 of "Blood and Fire" is finalizing the audio and not editing or tinkering with anything else. Am I mistooken?
Well, I respectfully disagree with your statements. I particularly disagree about marriage not having the same equality as other rights. Oh well -- I guess we agree to disagree.
The current challenge for gay rights in the U.S. is that the majority are voting in referenda which are deciding the rights of minorities. Hence, the gay minority is being persecuted by the majority --- the very persecution which you argue is largely historical "now"
I am very glad that I live in Canada where more enlightened political, legal, and human rights frameworks are in place.
Similar threads
