Should NuSulu be gay?
- Thread starter awesomeocalypse
- Start date
- Status
The less I see of them pursuing men or women and instead focusing on a story the better. Wasted air time unless Star Trek has suddenly become a romance movie...
Including themselves!
Well, let's face it, the characters in Trek are mostly underdeveloped anyway... and given the way the characters were just introduced briefly in this movie, there's no way that they'd take the time to go into the sexual preferences of any character... beyond that semi-awkward Kirk-Spock-Uhura thing.
Or... perhaps we are all bisexual, and societal pressures force many people to conform to a very strict idea of what is "normal"?
Back in the days where a village's survival depended upon "populate or perish", it was a huge disadvantage if some productive young members of the tribe were preferring same-sex couplings.
I think the character that actually could change the most is Chekov, as he's supposedly four years older than his prime universe counterpart anyway. Genetically speaking, he's a different person. Also, this could technically apply to anyone that's younger than Kirk. Any character younger than Kirk could have been conceived at a different time (even if that time difference is a day) than they were in the prime universe, making their genetic data different. That means, almost anyone that was a classmate of Kirk's except for McCoy (I'm reasonably sure Spock is also older than Kirk, as well as, obviously Scotty).
Anyway, perhaps in the future, they subscribe to something like the Kinsey Scale, where very few people are completely gay or straight. If that's true, then any relationships, or sexual encounters depicted on screen are only a sample of the characters' experiences.
Anyway, perhaps in the future, they subscribe to something like the Kinsey Scale, where very few people are completely gay or straight. If that's true, then any relationships, or sexual encounters depicted on screen are only a sample of the characters' experiences.
And...
Exactly. STAR TREK has always made a point of being progressive and tolerant and ahead of the times: the first interracial kiss, the multiethnic cast, Russians and Klingons on the bridge, saving the whales . . . .
"Infinite diversity in infinite combinations," remember?
That's why it's always been odd that modern Trek has been dragging its feet where gay crew members are concerned.
The contrarian in me can't resist pointing out that the most popular STAR TREK episode of all time, "City on the Edge of Forever," is a tragic love story . . . .
Done right, romance has played a part in STAR TREK.
Lightinspire
Lieutenant Commander
Give the gay thing a rest. It has been done in a fan film and from what I was sent, it was very disgusting. You don't need to introduce something like that to have a good movie.
This topic has been discussed before, and it ended badly.
If this were a TV show, I'd have no problem. The Trek TV shows were all about exploring, examining, and breaking social norms. The uber-play-it-safe mentality of The Berman years really put a damper on most of that though. It was a sad day for the franchise when Ally McBeal was a more daring show then Voyager or Enterprise. But those were the TV shows.
THE TREK MOVIES were all about explosions, jokes, and one-liners. Except for the first one, and few people liked that one. Trying to make a political statement by turning a character of classic Americana gay - just for the sake of being gay - would smell of agenda and the same obsessive Next Gen political correctness that has been crippling the franchise for years and only now have we started to get away from it. Especially when it's been established that the character isn't gay.
Putting something like that into a macho action movie would be a sure fire way to generate the wrong type of controversy that would sink profits. God, I can just see Bill O'reilly and Focus on The Family throwing shit fits about it. Because that's what Star Trek is really all about: Making money for Paramount.
If this were a TV show, I'd have no problem. The Trek TV shows were all about exploring, examining, and breaking social norms. The uber-play-it-safe mentality of The Berman years really put a damper on most of that though. It was a sad day for the franchise when Ally McBeal was a more daring show then Voyager or Enterprise. But those were the TV shows.
THE TREK MOVIES were all about explosions, jokes, and one-liners. Except for the first one, and few people liked that one. Trying to make a political statement by turning a character of classic Americana gay - just for the sake of being gay - would smell of agenda and the same obsessive Next Gen political correctness that has been crippling the franchise for years and only now have we started to get away from it. Especially when it's been established that the character isn't gay.
Putting something like that into a macho action movie would be a sure fire way to generate the wrong type of controversy that would sink profits. God, I can just see Bill O'reilly and Focus on The Family throwing shit fits about it. Because that's what Star Trek is really all about: Making money for Paramount.
See my previous post about how STAR TREK could use a gay character to live up to its own ideals and philosophy . . . .
Lightinspire
Lieutenant Commander
And the ENTERPRISE has needed a gay regular for decades now . . .[/QUOTE]
Needs one? How many billions of dollars were made and no gay character...why does it NEED one. There will be many fans quit watching and paying for Star Trek if that happened and I don't think Paramount would risk that.
Needs one? How many billions of dollars were made and no gay character...why does it NEED one. There will be many fans quit watching and paying for Star Trek if that happened and I don't think Paramount would risk that.
2 of my gay friends have biological kids from when they had wives.
It really isn't that unusual.
A small minority of close-minded, discriminating bigots. Star Trek is better off without them, much as those who count the money would disagree.
Trek neither needs a gay character, nor doesn't need one, but it has been far too long since Trek has courted controversy in any way. I think this movie did a brilliant job of bringing back the characters, but now that the housecleaning is done, it would be nice if the next movie was one that organically involved a social issue. And it would be nice if it was even a movie that didn't involve a villain, a la Star Trek IV (though less preachy).
Needs one? How many billions of dollars were made and no gay character...why does it NEED one. There will be many fans quit watching and paying for Star Trek if that happened and I don't think Paramount would risk that.[/QUOTE]
Then I suggest, respectfully, that those fans would be kind of missing the point of STAR TREK . . . .
Well that much was obvious from the start
That's the big difference between the new trek and the old trek. Old Trek was about exploring the human condition. New trek is about making a summer blockbuster.
Oops. I don't think I was clear before. I meant the boycotting fans would be missing the point, not Paramount.
(I edited my original post to avoid confusion.)
Ahh I see. Yeah, considering how Trek is supposed to be pushing the limits, it does seem a tad stupid for fans to boycott Trek for having a gay character. It would happen for sure but that would be their lossWell that much was obvious from the start
That's the big difference between the new trek and the old trek. Old Trek was about exploring the human condition. New trek is about making a summer blockbuster.
Oops. I don't think I was clear before. I meant the boycotting fans would be missing the point, not Paramount.
(I edited my original post to avoid confusion.)
- Status
Similar threads
