Who else feels robbed of Star Trek?

[Greg Cox]

Juxtapose that to other ideas people have had, like the bi x-men guy bryan singer who wanted to set it HUNDREDS of years in the future in some completely weird and foreign plot idea....

Um, I have to ask: Why bother to mention that Singer is "bi"?

What does that have to do with moving the timeline ahead by centuries? Is that supposed to count against his ideas somehow?

I mean, presumably you wouldn't describe Roddenberry as "that straight guy who created STAR TREK" . . . .

 

[martok2112]

As I'm fond of pointing out, Star Trek means different things to different people. While I embrace pretty much everything about Star Trek, I am more of an action adventure kind of guy....so movies like Nemesis, ST09, and STID, and DS9 appeal to me more than most other Trek. But to limit myself strictly to that aspect would deprive me of the larger, richer whole.

 

[hux]

Juxtapose that to other ideas people have had, like the bi x-men guy bryan singer who wanted to set it HUNDREDS of years in the future in some completely weird and foreign plot idea...

Bi ideas are the worst. I once knew a bi who came up with the idea of underwear that you don't need to clean. When will bi's learn? Ideas are just not their thing.

 

[BillJ]

Juxtapose that to other ideas people have had, like the bi x-men guy bryan singer who wanted to set it HUNDREDS of years in the future in some completely weird and foreign plot idea....

Um, I have to ask: Why bother to mention that Singer is "bi"?

What does that have to do with moving the timeline ahead by centuries? Is that supposed to count against his ideas somehow?

I mean, presumably you wouldn't describe Roddenberry as "that straight guy who created STAR TREK" . . . .

You gotta watch out when "bi" people make entertainment! They'll introduce their insidious ideas into their movies and, soon, everyone will be "bi"!

 

[AdmiralBruno]

You know if he helmed a ST there would probably be an "LGBT" character.

There may be some vague references to this sort of thing sprinkled in there, but it is never outright shoved in our faces.

One of the problems with Stargate Universe was they put that in specifically for that reason. ST producers have said they won't make a character gay if there's not an actual story reason and doing it just as a "token" thing. I actually thought the way Stargate did it was repulsive. There is an episode where they use this device they use to go back to earth and change places with someone else's body, and this lesbian uses that person's body to have "sex" with their "wife".... and apparently without their consent.

We don't need that sort of thing in ST.

 

[BillJ]

You know if he helmed a ST there would probably be an "LGBT" character.

And?

 

[AdmiralBruno]

Every decision should be made ONLY for creative reasons

 

[Greg Cox]

You know if he helmed a ST there would probably be an "LGBT" character.

God forbid! Thank goodness TOS didn't shove any "token" black or Asian or Russian characters in our faces just to be progressive. STAR TREK didn't need that kind of thing.

Seriously, before this entire thread goes off the rails, that's a whole other issue. I still don't see what the "bi" business has to do with any of Singer's other ideas, like setting the next show hundreds of years in the future. Unless you think that mentioning that he's "bi" automatically discredits his ideas.

I mean, trying replacing "bi" in that sentence with "Jewish" or "Asian" or whatever. Or imagine going out of your way to identify J.J. Abrams or Michael Dorn as straight, or Worf as a "popular heterosexual character."

See the problem?

And one more thing: How is including a gay character less of a "creative decision" than, say, making making Scotty Scottish or making Tuvok married or Picard a bald, French man? Or making Kirk a ladies' man?

Unless you think the mere inclusion of gay character somehow crosses some sort of line . . ..

 

[BillJ]

Every decision should be made ONLY for creative reasons

You realize it doesn't work that way? Decisions are made for business reasons. Whether including black people in the 60's or gay people now, it is done because they have money to spend, and advertisers/content providers don't want to miss out on that money.

Don't worry, gay isn't a "transmitted" disease, either you are oriented a certain way or not. Seeing it on TV isn't going to cause you to run out and start banging dudes. I've been watching/reading popular media for 43 years and haven't ever had the desire to bang a dude because of seeing or reading about it.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

That's all not the same.

It's wrong to discriminate against people based on their race or ethnicity.

But when they choose to engage in immoral behavior that offends many..... that's another matter.

You won't find many people who outright hate someone because they are Russian, or half Vulcan/half human, or black, or Asian, etc.... but a LOT of people are not comfortable with a view of the future where all personal morality goes down the drain.... so the ambiguous nature of how far the leftist social agenda has advanced is preferable to being PUSHY with it.

Well, Singer's idea was dumb because it was like 500 years later and there's not many ships being used and people don't bother to explore, blah blah. I just thought it was a dumb concept he had.

 

[BillJ]

But when they choose to engage in immoral behavior that offends many..... that's another matter.

Why does what goes on between consenting adults offend you? You're not being forced to participate.

And fifty years ago, people did hate other people simply for the color of their skin. There still are, but they aren't as out in the open because it is no longer seen as acceptable.

 

[Greg Cox]

That's all not the same.

It's wrong to discriminate against people based on their race or ethnicity.

But when they choose to engage in immoral behavior that offends many..... that's another matter.

Remember the famous Kirk/Uhura kiss on TOS? You do realize that many people found that kind of thing very offensive back in the 1960s?

Should STAR TREK have played it safe in order to avoid possibly offending anyone?

And, honestly, we're talking STAR TREK here. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations, and all that. A future free of prejudice and discrimination, where even androids and Hortas and Gorns are treated as equals, etc.

And yet gay people are still beyond the pale, even in the 23rd century?

That doesn't sound like STAR TREK to me.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

You do know STD transmission rates(particularly HIV) are MUCH higher among people who engage in that behavior? That says something....

The whole point of Star Trek is in the future we don't care about nonsensical differences like that. As I said, you don't choose what you look like.

You do choose whether you engage in that conduct. There is no biological purpose served by homosexual activity.

 

[sojourner]

But when they choose to engage in immoral behavior that offends many..... that's another matter.

OK, by who's morals should we hold everyone to? Yours?

No thanks.

 

[Squiggy]

The whole point of Star Trek is in the future we don't care about nonsensical differences like that. As I said, you don't choose what you look like.

You do choose whether you engage in that conduct. There is no biological purpose served by homosexual activity.

Too bad some people in the present care about that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That's all not the same.

It's wrong to discriminate against people based on their race or ethnicity.

But when they choose to engage in immoral behavior that offends many..... that's another matter.

Not its not. Because its not "immoral".

You won't find many people who outright hate someone because they are Russian, or half Vulcan/half human, or black, or Asian, etc.... but a LOT of people are not comfortable with a view of the future where all personal morality goes down the drain.... so the ambiguous nature of how far the leftist social agenda has advanced is preferable to being PUSHY with it.

.

Even one is too many. There was a time when a LOT of people were uncomfortable with people who are Russian or black, or Asian, etc..... Times change.LGBT people now have the same rights as everyone else. For me that's a very morally right thing and keeping with the "leftist social agenda" that is Star Trek.

Being Pushy gets things done. It freed the slaves and gained many people equal rights.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

Until recently when it was buried in a defense bill that all these traitors voted for.... sodomy was against military law(for straight or gay people). It's called UCMJ Article 125.

I'd like to think we'd not want it in the future either.

And if you people think this belongs in Star Trek, then I think the economic system belongs in real life. Let's re-distribute all of the wealth of the rich so everyone is equal? Because it's economic discrimination. If you are born in to wealth you are treated differently.

 

[sojourner]

You do know STD transmission rates(particularly HIV) are MUCH higher among people who engage in that behavior? That says something....

Ah, the old fallacy.

 

[BillJ]

You do know STD transmission rates(particularly HIV) are MUCH higher among people who engage in that behavior? That says something....

Could have something to do with constantly hiding who they are.

The whole point of Star Trek is in the future we don't care about nonsensical differences like that. As I said, you don't choose what you look like.

But it's okay for us to show nice, American heterosexual activity?

You do choose whether you engage in that conduct. There is no biological purpose served by homosexual activity.

There is no biological purpose to 95% of sexual behavior as people do it for fun. Fun fact: Captain Kirk had an STD!

 

[Gov Kodos]

You do know STD transmission rates(particularly HIV) are MUCH higher among people who engage in that behavior? That says something....

The whole point of Star Trek is in the future we don't care about nonsensical differences like that. As I said, you don't choose what you look like.

You do choose whether you engage in that conduct. There is no biological purpose served by homosexual activity.

Oh, really? Can you elaborate on this?