But if we combine these two, we can have the Star Trek version of Mega Maid.
She's gone from suck to blow!
What Do You Want To See? Star Trek Beyond
- Thread starter BillJ
- Start date
But if we combine these two, we can have the Star Trek version of Mega Maid.
She's gone from suck to blow!
Do you have any problems with nuKirk's heterosexuality being out in the open and "in your face?" There were partually clothed bedroom scenes in both movies.
So a gay character would be able to be shown in bed partually clothed with their samesex spouse or lover without (in your view) being "in your face."
Yes?
The gay Trek community will (you know there is one right?), just the way it is martok2112.
Do you have any problems with nuKirk's heterosexuality being out in the open and "in your face?" There were partually clothed bedroom scenes in both movies.
So a gay character would be able to be shown in bed partually clothed with their samesex spouse or lover without (in your view) being "in your face."
Yes?
The gay Trek community will (you know there is one right?), just the way it is martok2112.
I will not be taken to task anymore for my opinions. I have stated them, and they are there, as delicately and sensitively put as I can make them without walking on eggshells.
Best policy is to take my opinions and accept them as those of a heterosexual man who is trying to adapt to the ever changing nature of our world...and it is not as easy as you might want to imagine it is.
When I watch Game of Thrones, yes, I am ultimately revulsed by the gay male on male scenes they have because, sorry, I am not ready for that. I will simply listen to the dialogue, because I know that sometimes in those scenes, there are still important plot points to tell. It does not mean that I am homophobic...or however one might want to spin it....but it does mean I am not ready for those kinds of visual details. I have admitted that. Accept it, or leave me be.
I was as equally revulsed by Cawley's Trek fanfilms that portrayed Kirk's nephew as gay, and his openly gay love scenes with his lover. Sorry, but that's just facts. No amount of task taking or persecution is going to change my feelings on the matter. Those scenes were done with nothing more than the proclamation of "Oooh...lookee what I did with Star Trek! I made it 'cutting edge'!"And yes, I have little problem with lesbian scenes....and it is not because of the titilation that usually accompanies such scenes. It has always been easier for me to accept seeing women love each other more passionately than watching a couple of dudes. That's just me!
You're wanting me to accept forced change. Sorry, I'll take the change on my terms, not yours.
My comments (sensitive and open as I try to make them) and my personal feelings are not meant to antagonize or troll gay members of this board...or gays in general.
Yes, I am aware there is a gay Trek community. To deny it would be ludicrous.
Last edited:
Why? Ultimately, it should be no different than watching two dudes fishing. There is nothing of a sexual interest for me when two dudes get it on. Just another part of life.
I get what you're saying. I wish it were so simple for me...but it isn't and it won't be. It's not a statement of homophobia. Just a statement of fact.
There's a lot of things I have no sexual interest in. Doesn't mean it's the same as watching two people fish.
As far as ST addressing LGBT issues, I think it would make more sense to do it in an episodic format as opposed to a movie. Doesn't mean you couldn't have openly gay character in the film though, but it's not going to happen.
Since hopefully this is a 50th Anniversary movie, keep the lifestyle stuff out of it and just make a good movie for everyone to enjoy as it usually is done. Make this one have lots of references to TOS characters and since there is such few left, there should be a story where Shatner, Koenig, Takei and Nichols could make cameo "meaningful" appearances.
Except for gay people who have been left out of Star Trek for 50 years.
What's one more movie?
Except perhaps for George Takei.....he may have come out of the closet after the fact....but he was a part of Trek for 50 years, regardless of being anonymous or open about it.
Bill, with all due respect, this is what I'm talking about. It's crusading where no crusades are needed. It'll all simply "been there, done that", except that other movies and shows have already long since beaten Trek to the punch. I'm not saying that Trek shouldn't. It's just that there's no need for it to make any kind of statement. You're wanting a statement to be made. There's no statement to be made.
Add a gay character, either a main or major? Fine. What's it going to prove or do? Nothing that hadn't already been done in movies and shows in the past. There's no vindication to be had. No victory. And any claims of either will be nothing more than socio-political grandstanding on a matter that has long been solved elsewhere. It will be empty.
I mean...what's going to happen if a gay character is introduced into the movie? Are the gay Trek fans going to stand up in the theater and whoop and shout and cry victory and vindication, and completely disrupt the movie for everyone else? I should certainly hope not. The standing up, whooping and hollering should be for the exciting moments of the film....not for some notion of "social justice".
Again, I do not say this to antagonize or troll. I can understand where you're coming from, I sincerely do.
Except perhaps for George Takei.....he may have come out of the closet after the fact....but he was a part of Trek for 50 years, regardless of being anonymous or open about it.
Bill, with all due respect, this is what I'm talking about. It's crusading where no crusades are needed. It'll all simply "been there, done that", except that other movies and shows have already long since beaten Trek to the punch. I'm not saying that Trek shouldn't. It's just that there's no need for it to make any kind of statement. You're wanting a statement to be made. There's no statement to be made.
Add a gay character, either a main or major? Fine. What's it going to prove or do? Nothing that hadn't already been done in movies and shows in the past. There's no vindication to be had. No victory. And any claims of either will be nothing more than socio-political grandstanding on a matter that has long been solved elsewhere. It will be empty.
Again, I do not say this to antagonize or troll. I can understand where you're coming from, I sincerely do.
For a fan base that constantly pats itself on the back for how smart and progressive Star Trek is, a lack of gay people is a glaring omission. Especially in the 21st century.
There is no crusade on my part. As a matter of fact, the crusade seems to be coming from the other side with comments like "keep the lifestyle stuff out of it and just make a good movie for everyone to enjoy as it usually is done".
How are you making something for everyone if you continue to not acknowledge the existence of a whole group of people?
When we talk about queerness as a lifestyle and criticize it when it is simply being shown, in a franchise that even has its non-emotional characters (Vulcans, Androids, Changelings, Cosmic Entities, etc.) in heterosexual relationships, seems pretty hypocritical given that the vast majority of relationships that we do see are indeed heterosexual; yet no one complains (nor should they) about any sort of heterosexual "lifestyle." It's treated as a simple fact of life, and but that treatment and, frankly, not caring that it's heterosexual, is a luxury that LGBT representation strives for for its own characters.
It simply isn't a crusade to try and show the diversity of people out there, precisely because that's what exists in communities. Showing a gay person does not necessarily mean tokenism if it means it's a reflection of the community that's watching it. And the reality is, for every 100 people who watch this movie, a handful of them will be LGBTQ no matter where yo ugo; to try and erase or disavow them is, frankly, much more effort than actually showing them, because then it's suppression rather than showing the default world, which includes these relationships. And showing them isn't a crusade; a crusade affects some sort of change, but frankly, showing them shows the current state. (for example, it's well known that TNG producers had meetings and debates about even showing a queer couple; yet, simply showing them in the background of Ten Forward -- like it was mentioned earlier above -- would save everyone so much time and effort, without needing to be a focus, simply because that's what we see in any given coffee shop or bar these days. No need for meetings, no need to talk about ramifications, no need to edit to the point of erasure, etc.).
Lastly: who would have ever thought that a brutal, bloody, medieval fantasy series would ever be considered an example of LGBT representation in television? Times, they're a changin'.
It simply isn't a crusade to try and show the diversity of people out there, precisely because that's what exists in communities. Showing a gay person does not necessarily mean tokenism if it means it's a reflection of the community that's watching it. And the reality is, for every 100 people who watch this movie, a handful of them will be LGBTQ no matter where yo ugo; to try and erase or disavow them is, frankly, much more effort than actually showing them, because then it's suppression rather than showing the default world, which includes these relationships. And showing them isn't a crusade; a crusade affects some sort of change, but frankly, showing them shows the current state. (for example, it's well known that TNG producers had meetings and debates about even showing a queer couple; yet, simply showing them in the background of Ten Forward -- like it was mentioned earlier above -- would save everyone so much time and effort, without needing to be a focus, simply because that's what we see in any given coffee shop or bar these days. No need for meetings, no need to talk about ramifications, no need to edit to the point of erasure, etc.).
Lastly: who would have ever thought that a brutal, bloody, medieval fantasy series would ever be considered an example of LGBT representation in television? Times, they're a changin'.
I read ya', Cyke.
I wish to go on with the discussion. I know it's easier said than done, but all, please disregard my previous remarks/opinions. They can be disruptive, and that was not my intent. I do not wish dischord where none is warranted.
Carry on forward. I do not wish to stick the thread on one point that has no bearing on "what we want to see" in a future Trek film/show. My humblest apologies for any offense given by me or perceived by anyone. BillJ has brought up a point, and it should not be trivialized.
Respectfully,
Martok2112 (still slow crawling in an ever changing world)
I wish to go on with the discussion. I know it's easier said than done, but all, please disregard my previous remarks/opinions. They can be disruptive, and that was not my intent. I do not wish dischord where none is warranted.
Carry on forward. I do not wish to stick the thread on one point that has no bearing on "what we want to see" in a future Trek film/show. My humblest apologies for any offense given by me or perceived by anyone.
BillJ has brought up a point, and it should not be trivialized.Respectfully,
Martok2112 (still slow crawling in an ever changing world)
An all original story focusing on exploration, not giant starships duking it out.
More use of McCoy.
Less seen of the Spock/Uhura "thing".
A strong, forthright female character whose sole purpose isn't as eye candy or "the girlfriend of ...".
Character development for the likes of Scott, Sulu or Chekov.
Janice Rand--a little homage to the late Grace Lee Whitney.
Andorians.
More use of McCoy.
Less seen of the Spock/Uhura "thing".
A strong, forthright female character whose sole purpose isn't as eye candy or "the girlfriend of ...".
Character development for the likes of Scott, Sulu or Chekov.
Janice Rand--a little homage to the late Grace Lee Whitney.
Andorians.
Last edited:
The introduction and development of a homosexual character would be best left to a TV series, where the wholeness of who they are (and not just who they sleep with) can be realised and developed.
Some things they'd need to consider for addressing the forgotten demographic of Trek:
How do you show a character to be 'openly gay' without them descending into a campy male/butch female stereotype? What would showing them in bed with a same sex partner do for the story/progress the plot? I'm gay and would love to see a homosexual man in Trek (its well past the time to include one, the PTB should be ashamed of themselves), but having something like that shoehorned in would annoy me more than being excluded yet again.
With a heterosexual cast of characters how would they go about trying to squeeze another person into the mix just to tick a box? If they'd been serious about this then they should've included one from the beginning, such as having Kirk jumping into bed with anyone.
Some things they'd need to consider for addressing the forgotten demographic of Trek:
How do you show a character to be 'openly gay' without them descending into a campy male/butch female stereotype? What would showing them in bed with a same sex partner do for the story/progress the plot? I'm gay and would love to see a homosexual man in Trek (its well past the time to include one, the PTB should be ashamed of themselves), but having something like that shoehorned in would annoy me more than being excluded yet again.
With a heterosexual cast of characters how would they go about trying to squeeze another person into the mix just to tick a box? If they'd been serious about this then they should've included one from the beginning, such as having Kirk jumping into bed with anyone.
I'd love to see:
- an original story with new villain, possibly a female one too.
- that they don't turn the characters, especially Spock, into caricatures of their tos counterparts.
- linked to previous point: I want them to still respect the integrity of these characters and thus respect what was done before, instead of getting some reboot of the reboot or off topic fanfiction that ignores the characters arcs.
- I'd love to see more of the vulcans and the spock/uhura relationship because I don't think they have taken fully advantage of the latter's potential yet. The relationship as well as Uhura's character and the arc they gave to Spock in terms of his vulcan/human heritage are the things that the previous movies had done the best for me.
The old movies are at fault a bit for making the characters grow old all alone and only focused on their job. It's just not realistic for them all to remain single or have nothing beyond their jobs. Gene Roddenberry had never intended them all to be monks, if you read about him he actually wanted to show that not only people married or had relationships on the ships, but they had kids too because the ships were created as some sort of surrogate of their home.
- I'd rather have them develop the characyers we have, than introducing new ones only for this movie that get too much screentine at the expense of iconic characters. The old movies often were at fault for doing this.
- less a myopic focus on kirk only and the kirk/spock friendship so that we can see other friendships too and more focus on the whole group.
- please let Michael Giacchino do the score again.
- an original story with new villain, possibly a female one too.
- that they don't turn the characters, especially Spock, into caricatures of their tos counterparts.
- linked to previous point: I want them to still respect the integrity of these characters and thus respect what was done before, instead of getting some reboot of the reboot or off topic fanfiction that ignores the characters arcs.
- I'd love to see more of the vulcans and the spock/uhura relationship because I don't think they have taken fully advantage of the latter's potential yet. The relationship as well as Uhura's character and the arc they gave to Spock in terms of his vulcan/human heritage are the things that the previous movies had done the best for me.
The old movies are at fault a bit for making the characters grow old all alone and only focused on their job. It's just not realistic for them all to remain single or have nothing beyond their jobs. Gene Roddenberry had never intended them all to be monks, if you read about him he actually wanted to show that not only people married or had relationships on the ships, but they had kids too because the ships were created as some sort of surrogate of their home.
- I'd rather have them develop the characyers we have, than introducing new ones only for this movie that get too much screentine at the expense of iconic characters. The old movies often were at fault for doing this.
- less a myopic focus on kirk only and the kirk/spock friendship so that we can see other friendships too and more focus on the whole group.
- please let Michael Giacchino do the score again.
Yes, I love Giacchino's music!
I just want a good entertaining movie. Without a checklist.
Actually, I did not like the sleazy element of NuKirk at all. Sex should not be emphasised in the Star Trek universe - that's not what it's about (bear in mind this is from someone currently in the middle of a marathon rewatch of Queer as Folk). And I don't think we want anymore Spock/Uhura-style bickering. If a queer relationship is to be represented, do it subtly - a pat on the arm with a meaningful look; a hug during/after a stressful situation; making mutual plans for after the adventure. That's as much romance as I want from any of these characters.
Umm...
The whole point of "The Cage" was that the Talosians wanted Pike and Vina (or Number One or Yeoman Colt) to mate to rebuild their civilizations.
Star Trek has always had a huge sexual element. David Marcus wasn't delivered via stork.
Maybe because the fear of losing a lot of Trek fan base since homosexuality is only about 4% of the population - be more afraid of losing more fans than gaining? Just a thought.
Similar threads
- Locked
