Will we (finally) see...

[Michael]

Re: We'll we (finally) see...

Heterosexuality was never flaunted as being the only acceptable orientation in ST. A gay relationship was just never explored.

Considering how sexless Star Trek traditionally is, [...]

Really? I think Heterosexuality was very much a part of many Trek episodes in the last forty years. Almost every relationship we ever saw on any series was a straight one. Maybe it's just me, but that seems to suggest that, well, indeed it's the "only acceptable orientation in ST". I just don't get how some can't understand the constant desire for a gay character in Trek. It sounds as if there already were too much of them.

But I concurr, shoehorning a gay character into this movie just for the sake of having him would be totally ill-conceived and distracting. Temis the Vorta is also right in her assertion that this may be a theme best explored in a TV series rather than a feature film. I also agree that it shouldn't only be about sex.

 

[Green Shirt]

a gay character in Star Trek (XI)?

This thread can be combined with the "What if it BOMBS" thread.

 

[SeamusShameless]

Re: We'll we (finally) see...

you mean there won't be a Mr. Sulu in the movie?

George Takei is gay, not Sulu.

 

[EnsignYoshi]

Temis the Vorta is also right in her assertion that this may be a theme best explored in a TV series rather than a feature film.

I agree with temis, but they had 40 years the chance, and now trek XI is the only (official) trek in production, headed by different persons then B & B. Now they have the chance. And why would every appearance of a gay character necesarrily be shoehorned in the movie. Babylon 5 managed to do it in a 5-second mention (ok this was in the series but still), without making it contrived or shoehorned in.

There are ways enough to mention it without seeming contrived.

Star trek is a very heterosexual show, 40 years of a show spanning 3 centuries (heck 6 or so if you count timetravel) of storyline and not a single GLBT character, little odd wouldn't you say? I also find it offensive when people start suggesting they "cured" homosexuality in the future.

Star Trek used to take risks, like with uhura, and dare to show a vision of the future that is worthwhile. now it's a goodie-twoshoes show that's too afraid to go anywhere.

Ironic actually that a show that's older then star trek already managed to include GLBT characters (doctor who).

i'm trying to hold back my gay joke thoughts,but it's just not working...I think it would be an absolutely fabulous idea..ok, ok that's all. actually i don't care either way....*cough* sailors, ship,*cough*, oops there went another one sorry.....ok, one more get a Security guard(Cop), Chakotay (Native American), an Engineer( 23rd century construction worker )a caption(Sailor) and a Klingon? (Biker) and have them sing it's fun to stay at the Enterprise no really I don't care.

They could sing "star trekkin' across the universe"

I fixed your thread title OP :thumbsup:

Thx I didn't even notice that
See Tralah, you're not the only one

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: We'll we (finally) see...

Didn't Takei say that Sulu was straight?

Anyway...will we see an (identified) gay character in the movie. Hmm...

Nope.

 

[TheCanon72]

Since gay characters aren't neccessary, does that mean straight aren't neccessary either?

...

anyone?

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

If Zachary Quinto isn't gay, I'll eat my rainbow flag.

 

[Jack Bauer]

NEWSFLASH!
NEWSFLASH!
NEWSFLASH!

Kirk and Spock come out of the closet in Star Trek coming May 2009.

 

[EnsignRicky]

Since gay characters aren't neccessary, does that mean straight aren't neccessary either?

...

anyone?

Of course they're necessary. If it wasn't for straight characters, there wouldn't be any characters at all; You'd have a bunch of Tribbles, and that would be about it.

 

[EnsignYoshi]

Of course they're necessary. If it wasn't for straight characters, there wouldn't be any characters at all; You'd have a bunch of Tribbles, and that would be about it.

the romulans erase humanity from the timeline and all that remains are tribbles. hey abrams said there would be tribbles in trek XI

 

[MisterPL]

Maybe homosexuality has been cured by the 23rd century.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Maybe homosexuality has been cured by the 23rd century.

Or maybe bigotry has.

Chances aren't looking good, granted.

 

[martin]

Re: We'll we (finally) see...

What about, just having a few guys holding hands in group shots, or while walking down the corridors of the Enterprise. There is no need to highlight gay, bi, or inter-species couples, just having them there, acting as other couples do is enough to feel the inclusive nature of the 23rd Century...

 

[Zeppster]

Re: We'll we (finally) see...

We've seen plenty of happy characters on Star Trek. And sad ones, and disinterested ones and stupid ones and smart ones. We get the entire realm of emotions.

 

[Kelso]

I'd like for there to be some mention of a more open sexuality existing in the Trek universe... surely a 23rd century man would find the hetero/homo labelling as silly as racism or sexism. It's a shame that Trek has never had the balls to say so.

 

[Zeppster]

I doubt Star Trek would want to touch the homosexuality thing even in todays age.

 

[TheCanon72]

DS9, and SCE have. :thumbsup:

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Re: We'll we (finally) see...

What is the deal with a gay character on Star Trek?

What is the deal with straight characters on Star Trek?

Throwing a gay character into any movie (not just Star Trek), just for the sake of having one in there, is lame. Heterosexuality was never flaunted as being the only acceptable orientation in ST. A gay relationship was just never explored.

I don't think this movie is the right time to start introducing new main characters, whether they're gay or straight. If they're going to have a gay character I'd rather it be a somewhat important role rather than just a token one.
TPTB have enough going on with casting new actors in already established iconic roles.

I agree. I really do not understand this obsession with having 'the gay character'. Shoot...I'm not even satisfied that they have STRAIGHT characters 'down' yet, in terms of showing any decent 'ships in Star Trek! Star Trek writers have a long and colorful history of writing just about the lamest 'ships in all of scifi! Babylon 5, Farscape, Buffy/Angel/Firefly, BSG, and Roswell are all leaps and bounds ahead of Trek in this area.

IMO, Star Trek should stay away from 'ships period - at least until they are capable of writing a decent one. And that goes for gay and straight 'ships!

And besides - a do-or-die movie is NOT the place to start experimenting with secondary issues like ships.

Let's get a decent scifi action/adventure movie first, gang. Then we can start obsessing about less important stuff.

Because if we don't get a decent action/adventure movie, there won't BE anymore Star Trek...gay, straight or otherwise.

 

[MisterPL]

Maybe homosexuality has been cured by the 23rd century.

Or maybe bigotry has.

Chances aren't looking good, granted.

With Dr, McCoy on the bridge, I'd say you're right. Humans may have learned to get along with each other by the 23rd century but obviously we still have a way to go when it comes to tolerating folks like that "green-blooded son of a bitch."

As far as homosexuality goes, I think it's still too controversial a subject for Trek, especially in a movie designed to reboot the franchise. I doubt Paramount wants to rock the shuttle too much.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

a gay character in Star Trek (XI)?

Ugh...not this crap again.

Why do you NEED a gay character??? Why do you need a love interest at all???