What Do You Want To See? Star Trek Beyond

[BillJ]

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.

Can you name a single film that was a failure because of the inclusion of a gay character? Besides, maybe Star Trek needs to be put out to pasture if the inclusion of people with different ideas or ways turns off the fan base that much. A relic of another time.

 

[TRON JA307020]

So what is everyone wanting from the next film? Things from TOS updated for the 21st century? Things they were never able to do in one of the prior series due to either money, technological or societal issues?

I'd like to focus on Star Trek Beyond and not have this devolve into bashing of Abrams, Orci or Kurtzman, as it seems none of them have any creative input this time around.

Two things stand out for me: A gay character and Scott in command of the Enterprise. I think the first finally brings Star Trek into the late-20th century on a big social issue and the latter would be fun as I always enjoyed Scott's turns in the captain's chair.

So? What about everyone else?

I would like to see a new villain that is not a familiar villain. Basically a new threatening alien. I want to see them far from earth and on their own. Of course they will be in contact with Starfleet but I think its time for them to explore deep space and meet whatever terrors are out there(similar to the original series. Non of the Star Trek movies old or new have ever really explored space(TMP was close) so I think its time to bring that back. I also want to see a briefing room scene and see the crew starting to act more mature like their counter parts. The new movie will be coming out in 2016 that's 7 years after the ST09 so I hope they have brought the characters 7 years later instead of only 1. They should be nearing the year of Where No Man has Gone Before now.


I may even be ok with a remake of Where No Man has Gone Before if its done right. With todays special effects that can have a Gary Mitchell that attempts to destroy the entire galaxy or at least Earth Solar system.

 

[F. King Daniel]

More of the same action, fun and characters from ST'09 and ID. Continuations of the character arcs we've seen. And some of the cool gravity tricks from the 2013 videogame, which when combined with Justin Lin's F&F intense action would be utterly mind blowing.

And someone to say "725 meters!"

 

[F. King Daniel]

This thread has comments from Abrams including mention of hopefully "implying a character's sexuality" in ST3. Of course, a lot has changed since the interview, it remains to be seen if Justin Lin picks up on any of these plot threads.

 

[Ryan8bit]

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 would. Shows like those are the kind that are willing to show things that make certain segments of an audience feel uncomfortable, and gay sex is just one of those things.

Star Trek is too sanitized to show things that make people uncomfortable. Probably one of the most unsanitized elements was the "Conspiracy" head phasering, although in a way that's almost more comical than unsettling. Even when Marcus' head was crushed, it wasn't shown. If it were Game of Thrones, we'd see thumbs in eyes and copious amounts of blood and screaming.

Star Trek doesn't really challenge people like that, and when it does, it often does so through heavyhanded allegory. I personally wouldn't mind for new Star Trek to actually be challenging and bold, but I'm not gonna hold my breath for it, especially out of Star Trek Beyond.

 

[Cyke101]

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.

Except for gay people who have been left out of Star Trek for 50 years.

What's one more movie?

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.

This line of thinking assumes that it's 96% vs. 4% (if those numbers are even accurate), as if it's a zero-sum game. Rather, let's consider the fact that of that 4%, each and every single LGBT person is part of a community that is primarily hetero. Workplace, school, family, friends, religious, even Trek conventions. So while LGBTs may or may not make a significant portion of the audience, their primarily-hetero communities do, and if their communities see LGBTs as friends and fellow humans, then there's no audience lost. It's a point of reference there; if you know a gay person, and then you see a gay person on the screen, you're more likely to think about and perceive that character differently than if you had never met a gay person at all. On the same token, seeing a gay person on screen in many ways makes one think -- even in the slightest ways -- about their connections to gay people in real life. That's the power of media representation.

 

[fireproof78]

Except for gay people who have been left out of Star Trek for 50 years.

What's one more movie?

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.

This line of thinking assumes that it's 96% vs. 4% (if those numbers are even accurate), as if it's a zero-sum game. Rather, let's consider the fact that of that 4%, each and every single LGBT person is part of a community that is primarily hetero. Workplace, school, family, friends, religious, even Trek conventions. So while LGBTs may or may not make a significant portion of the audience, their primarily-hetero communities do, and if their communities see LGBTs as friends and fellow humans, then there's no audience lost. It's a point of reference there; if you know a gay person, and then you see a gay person on the screen, you're more likely to think about and perceive that character differently than if you had never met a gay person at all. On the same token, seeing a gay person on screen in many ways makes one think -- even in the slightest ways -- about their connections to gay people in real life. That's the power of media representation.

I have to agree. I may not always agree with all LBGT positions but they do not always see fair representation in media and that bothers me. I won't deny them some sort of representation in media. Heck, even Doctor Who managed to work it in slowly over time.

It doesn't have to be overt, or explicit in your face, like GoT, or whatever other show. It can be as simple as being part of a character's backstory.

But, I do understand the discomfort that it can make too. It's just, well, I think there should be some representation, even if it makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Silverman]

For fear of being banned I with hold any more comment though I'm itching to let my views be known but alas I'm prevented doing so, so as far as this topic I have to say "I'm out".

 

[martok2112]

No need to back out, Silverman. No one here is being militant or heavy handed about their views. You can even see debate among the advocates of LGBT....and it's not a result of anything either you or I have said. There really is some good thoughtful debate going on in here.

Ultimately, the debate seems to focus on the socio-political implications of just how heavily would the next Trek want to go to introduce a gay character.

Get too heavy with it, and it seems like a political statement, or grandstanding.
Keep it in the background, and it seems like gay characters are still getting the slight and brush off.

Bottom line: It would be a delicate balance to walk to introduce a gay character so that he/she feels like a legitimate part of the story, rather than just tokenism, vindication, or emergent representation.


Your actual parsecs may vary.

An important part of what I was talking about earlier was that, if one is going to introduce a gay character, have it simply be a part of their background. It can be emergent in a social setting, like the crew lounge. And it has to be done innocuously....as it if were simply there all along. If the gay crewmembers are a part of the major dialogue of the scene, then have them do something like holding hands, or one sitting comfortably with the other's arm around him/her....but do not let on in the scene that some other straight crewmember might say later: "Wow...never saw that coming." That defeats the undertone of the gay character, and the purpose of introducing him/her as just a "matter of fact" walk of life for the 23rd century.

Gays are far more accepted today than in decades past, but they are still far from total acceptance. One would figure that well before the "enlightented" 23rd Century, gays were fully accepted without a second's hesitation.

 

[Franklin]

I want to see them hitting on all cylinders together. No tensions. No growing pains. No more learning to do about leadership, duty, etc. To that end, I hope real time (three years) has passed between the end of STID and the start of the new story. We meet them again at the start of the third year of their five year mission. Think about it. This is the eighth TOS era movie. To this point, to paraphrase Kirk from TVH, we haven't really caught them at their best on the big screen.

-- TMP: Getting the band back together with all the glitches and hitches in getting it done.
-- TWOK: Kirk in middle age, dealing with aging and flagging confidence.
-- TSFS: How good the story is or isn't aside, Spock is missing from most of the movie.
-- TVH: Spock as a kind of comic relief as he rediscovers himself. The rest of the characters as fish out of water.
-- TFF: Characters under mind control.
-- TUC: Dealing with their careers winding down.
-- ST09: Origins.
-- STID: Maturing into job.

Just this once (and since "who knows?" after this, this may be the last real shot), I'd LOVE to see a big-budget, high production values, whizz-bang and golly gee story on the big screen where our heroes are functioning AT THEIR BEST in their early primes as individuals and as a team. Specifically, I'd like to see the implicit trust between Kirk and Spock, as well as with McCoy and those two, that existed in many of the better TOS episodes.

 

[M'Sharak]

For fear of being banned I with hold any more comment though I'm itching to let my views be known but alas I'm prevented doing so, so as far as this topic I have to say "I'm out".

The time for you to have made that call would have been before making these posts. But then, you already knew that.

No need to back out, Silverman. No one here is being militant or heavy handed about their views.

Not in this thread, no—I'd say it's been pretty civil and reasonable—but Silverman has been quite outspoken about his views in the past, to such a degree that he's not permitted to post at TrekBBS any more. Because of that, he was fully aware that what he was doing here wouldn't end well.

 

[Smellmet]

Gays are far more accepted today than in decades past, but they are still far from total acceptance. One would figure that well before the "enlightented" 23rd Century, gays were fully accepted without a second's hesitation.

^This. I've made a similar point to this in an older thread a few months ago. It's barely worth integrating it into the next film, and if they do it needs to be as understated as possible, so it seems completely normal, as it is. Anything else will range from grandstanding or lip service as you said. Just look how far we've come in the last twenty years, let alone two hundred plus.

 

[thumbtack]

I'd like to see Keenser be gay and extremely horny. Barring that, then maybe this...

Zoe Saldana doing the fan dance from ST 5.

 

[martok2112]

I'd like to see Keenser be gay and extremely horny.

Somehow, I just got this really funny image of Keenser humping Scotty's leg.

 

[TRON JA307020]

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.

Except for gay people who have been left out of Star Trek for 50 years.

What's one more movie?

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.

I don't think having one gay character would lose any Star Trek fan base unless they showed some kind of gratuitous sex. Just having a gay character wont harm the franchise. Since Star Trek is a more family oriented show just having a character declare they are gay and mention there partner would be fine and fall within family oriented parameters. If they start showing gratuitous sex then yeah you might lose a good portion of the fan base.

 

[Trekkin]

Personally, I'd like to see the history prior to first contact. Eugenics Wars, WWII etc. Show the Star Trek world's baptism by fire. Flashbacks, time travel, just a flat-out prequel etc.

But, I don't know whether it should ever happen (and am damn certain that it won't.) In spite of it being part of the official backstory, there not really a way to show the end of the world as we know it without going pretty dark. I think if most Trekkies wanted to see The Day After or Mad Max with a mostly happy ending, then they would go see the new Mad Max.

If they bring Khan back (though if they do, it probably won't be in this movie) then I'd like for at least some of his crew to be actual characters instead of Khans mindless evil army. Have some question him, or change sides to the Feds, or just generally have motivations that aren't 'crush, kill, destroy'. Archers claim in Enterprise that they were doomed to be monsters even before birth, has always rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[T'Girl]

Continuations of the character arcs we've seen.

I wouldn't mind seeing a end to the Spock and Uhura relationship and just have them be friends without benefits. No more Uhura the high maintenance girlfriend.

and if they do it needs to be as understated as possible

Problem is if they're too subtle then the character isn't gay. The movie is a presentation, you have to clearly indicate to the audience that they are in fact gay.

How? The same way it was clearly establish that McCoy was formerly married to a "she," through dialog. Or visually, like how Kirk is repeatedly seen to be checking out women.

 

[urbandefault]

Problem is if they're too subtle then the character isn't gay.

Every time a "what do you want to see in Trek" topic comes up, it turns into this.

If "too subtle" means a character isn't gay, then where is the dividing line? Should they wear a sign around their necks, or make out in the ship's corridors like high school kids between classes? I'm being obviously ridiculous, and I like it.

In my everyday travels through life, I'm sure that I meet gay people all the time. I don't know who is and who isn't, and I don't care. A person's sexuality is not the reason that I interact with them.

Do what you want, be who you are, and don't inflict yourself on people who aren't interested. That's a pretty good way to live, in my opinion.

The real question is, does a character's sexuality add to or detract from the story?

Star Trek isn't about who likes who, or which thingy goes where. It's about Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise and space and what's out there and having some fun adventures.

All that other stuff is boring.

 

[Dales]

anytime.
however I dont think they need to rush things.

 

[Smellmet]

Problem is if they're too subtle then the character isn't gay.

Every time a "what do you want to see in Trek" topic comes up, it turns into this.

If "too subtle" means a character isn't gay, then where is the dividing line? Should they wear a sign around their necks, or make out in the ship's corridors like high school kids between classes? I'm being obviously ridiculous, and I like it.

In my everyday travels through life, I'm sure that I meet gay people all the time. I don't know who is and who isn't, and I don't care. A person's sexuality is not the reason that I interact with them.

Do what you want, be who you are, and don't inflict yourself on people who aren't interested. That's a pretty good way to live, in my opinion.

The real question is, does a character's sexuality add to or detract from the story?

Star Trek isn't about who likes who, or which thingy goes where. It's about Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise and space and what's out there and having some fun adventures.

All that other stuff is boring.

Couldn't agree with this more.