Will we (finally) see...

[EnsignYoshi]

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

yes cause having an action/adventure flick is way more important than equality or having the balls to tell stories about the human condition.
Marketing is way more important then a decent thoughtprovoking SF-tale.

I'm starting to think some people just can't understand why a gay character is important. Off course they're not gay, so can they ever understand?

 

[MisterPL]

I want a heterosexual character.

And when I say hetero, I mean FLAYMBOYANTLY heterosexual. I'm talking the 23rd century equivalent of Austin Powers. Someone who makes Charlie Sheen look like Alan Alda. Male or female, it doesn't matter, I just want the audience to be made perfectly clear that the character on screen is thinking of one thing and one thing only; making hot space-love with someone from the opposite sex.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I'm starting to think some people just can't understand why a gay character is important. Off course they're not gay, so can they ever understand?

Well, I'm not gay, but I certainly think we are way past the time that we should have already dealt with gay issues on Star Trek. Especially on Star Trek. (And I'm not talking about just showing two hot chicks kissing.)

Of course, I think Star Trek is at its best when it challenges us as a society and pushes our buttons. Kicks us in the complacency, and all that. Since modern Trek gave up on anything more than the superficial appearance of diversity in its crews, I haven't expected the "gay" issue -- or any other issue -- to be tackled in a long time.

Is Star Trek XI the right place to tackle that? Depends. There are so many ways to address it. Subtle ways. In-your-face ways.

I'll leave it at this. Star Trek XI is as good as any place to address homosexuality. I won't be offended if it doesn't. But the "Let's just get this movie right and then we'll address [hot-button issue] in the next movie" attitude is just stalling. With that mentality, we'll never get there. It's issue procrastination, if you will. Which is exactly what many people want.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

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

yes cause having an action/adventure flick is way more important than equality or having the balls to tell stories about the human condition.
Marketing is way more important then a decent thoughtprovoking SF-tale.

I'm starting to think some people just can't understand why a gay character is important. Off course they're not gay, so can they ever understand?

Well, I'm not gay...I'm straight.

But of course you didn't bother to include my point about how I don't want straight 'ships in this movie either. Instead, you chose to portray my comments in the narrowest light possible. Well done!

A two hour movie is not the place to get sidetracked into something that should be developed over a season - or at least a few episodes. Unless you WANT a gay character to only be 'that gay character'...who will never get developed except as some lame token, thrown in there like "the AIDS character" or whatever...who never quite fits in to people's mindsets as 'normal' precisely BECAUSE they were set up merely as a token.

I know I don't like women portrayed like that. And I certainly don't like people of my personal religious background (which is a minority) portrayed like that. I don't WANT to have a token thrown at me. I don't WANT the crumbs. I want substantive development if a character with my background is to be included. But that is not likely to happen in a two-hour movie. It's just not.

I mean, is THAT what you want? Because in a two hour movie, very few characters besides Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty are gonna get much development. Everyone else is gonna be wallpaper, more or less. Which is as it should be, whether they are gay OR straight characters.

This movie is NOT about sex, after all....just as it is not about race or religion. It is about action and adventure....and any time spent on character development should be spent not on sexual issues (of ANY kind - gay or straight) or on race, or on religion, or on any other special interest ...but on developing the 'new' Kirk, Spock and McCoy into a believable core group that people bond with so that they will come back and see Trek XII, XIII and so on.

It's like the thread about the Pakistani character. I don't give a shit about that either. I want a good movie - not a series of nods to special interest groups, just for the sake of it.

We have never had a Pakistani character. We have never had a Jewish character. Do you want those also? I mean, it would mean alot to Jewish people if they had a character. Shoot - Shatner and Nimoy are both Jewish, fer cryin' out loud! Why not a Jewish character????

Personally, I want one!

But where does it stop? Do we want 2 hours of tokenism? Or do we want a good movie that is focused on telling an exciting story that people will want to see continued?

I have no objection to gay characters in the show. In fact, many people, at least in the DS9 forum, believe that we HAVE had a gay character in Trek already...who was portrayed not as 'that gay character'...but as a great character (one of the best in Trek, in fact) whose sexual orientation was second nature to him, the other DS9 characters...AND to us. Not plastered across his forehead in the most lame and tokenistic way possible.

Good grief, if my religious orientation is finally addressed (and I believe it should be), I'd want it addressed in more than a token way. I'd want it in a way that is respectful...and most of all, in a way that assumes that it is normal. Not something that needs to be advertised and pointed out and 'dealt with'. If something is 'dealt with' that implies it is not normal. And I don't know about YOU...but I wouldn't want that.

I don't want to be 'dealt with'. That is not acceptance. That is tokenism.

And it's bullshit.

If you want to settle for that, I suppose that is your right. But me? I'll hold out for REAL acceptance.

 

[darthgordon]

Okay, the reason why it is important to people (mostly gay) is for the same reason it was important to for African Americans to see blacks being portrayed on TOS as equals. People who were not only equal in jobs and rank, but were looked at with respect. It showed that there was hope for the future. Let's not forget how blacks on TV and movies were portrayed in the 60's. They were usually the maids and butlers or servants and had thick southern accents.

This was a time when political figures and government laws made it okay to be prejudice. White society (especially in the South) looked down on blacks as being beneath them.

This is how many gays feel today when they hear hate speeches calling them immoral for being gay and having laws introduced and passed that say that they are not equal to straight people.

In many states, you can still be fired for being gay. You're not allowed to serve in the military unless you remain deeply in the closet. "Don't ask don't tell" does not protect you from being outed. Who wants to live a lie or serve a country that says you're not equal anyway?

Star Trek, even being just a television show, showed blacks that there would be a future with them in it as equals.

It was a hot button then, just as being gay is now.

However, I'd tend to agree that this movie probably isn't the place. It would feel shoe horned in, and would work better on the small screen. It would also be more poignant if it were a main supporting character. The main characters of TOS have already been put in place.

The problem is writing for a gay character in the future. The stereotypes of today wouldn't exist the 23rd century. Then there's things like would you say "partner" or "husband"?

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Okay, the reason why it is important to people (mostly gay) is for the same reason it was important to for African Americans to see blacks being portrayed on TOS as equals. People who were not only equal in jobs and rank, but were looked at with respect. It showed that there was hope for the future. Let's not forget how blacks on TV and movies were portrayed in the 60's. They were usually the maids and butlers or servants and had thick southern accents.

This was a time when political figures and government laws made it okay to be prejudice. White society (especially in the South) looked down on blacks as being beneath them.

This is how many gays feel today when they hear hate speeches calling them immoral for being gay and having laws introduced and passed that say that they are not equal to straight people.

In many states, you can still be fired for being gay. You're not allowed to serve in the military unless you remain deeply in the closet. "Don't ask don't tell" does not protect you from being outed. Who wants to live a lie or serve a country that says you're not equal anyway?

Star Trek, even being just a television show, showed blacks that there would be a future with them in it as equals.

It was a hot button then, just as being gay is now.

However, I'd tend to agree that this movie probably isn't the place. It would feel shoe horned in, and would work better on the small screen. It would also be more poignant if it were a main supporting character. The main characters of TOS have already been put in place.

The problem is writing for a gay character in the future. The stereotypes of today wouldn't exist the 23rd century. Then there's things like would you say "partner" or "husband"?

Well, I get what you're saying. I really do. It wasn't 70 years ago when whole parts of my family were exterminated like dogs for their religious beliefs: rounded up, shoved into boxcars 100 or more to a stinking car, herded into camps like animals, stripped naked, pushed into gas chambers, and exterminated in the most degrading and humiliating way possible. Unless they got 'lucky'...and got picked to be one of the ones to carry the bodies of their friends and neighbors to ovens like so many loaves of bread (until they dropped over from disease or starvation, that is...and then they met the same fate). Or unless they got picked to be one of the people used as guinea pigs in scientific 'experiments'.

Jewish people are STILL persecuted in this country. You can't get fired for being Jewish (at least not officially)...but come ON. Most states are 'at will' employment states, and they don't NEED to state a reason to fire you at all. And even if they did, they could make something up....or set you up.

It does happen, each and every day in the business world. Especially in the South. As a CPA practicing in the South, I've been in many a company and many a boardroom in my time...and I have heard with my own ears some of the most harrowing shit imaginable. Prejudice exists - religious, racial, sexual-orientation-related, and gender-related.

Gay people are not the only people who suffer because of the prejudice of small-minded individuals.

So you don't need to tell me one damn thing about persecution.

However....is this movie the place I wanna make my stand? Is this the place I wanna say: "There MUST be a Jewish character???"

Why? The movie is not about religion, is it? And since that is not the case, and there is no time to develop the character in such a way as to show that it is a normal state of being (like Kira Nerys' religion was displayed and developed over time in DS9, for example...or like Sisko only over time accepted himself as The Emissary), the only alternative is, as you call it, 'shoehorning' it in. I call it tokenism - you call it shoehorning.

But either way, it is bullshit. It feels forced - fake. And personally, I don't want to settle for that.

In truth, if I was gay, I'd be all about getting a DS9 movie (or one with the DS9 cast in it)...and having Garak officially 'come out'. Lord knows there is ample development leading in that direction. It's already set up for the taking. You are 3/4 of the way there already!

Not that I'm proposing a DS9 movie as I've never been a fan of that idea myself for other reasons. But if I was gay, that would be where I'd be looking.

Not toward shoehorning 'that gay character' with 5 minutes of screen time into a 2-hour film.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, I'm not gay, but I certainly think we are way past the time that we should have already dealt with gay issues on Star Trek. Especially on Star Trek. (And I'm not talking about just showing two hot chicks kissing.)

Of course, I think Star Trek is at its best when it challenges us as a society and pushes our buttons. Kicks us in the complacency, and all that. Since modern Trek gave up on anything more than the superficial appearance of diversity in its crews, I haven't expected the "gay" issue -- or any other issue -- to be tackled in a long time.

You just brought up the IQ curve around here rather unforgivably.

Guess I'll just go back to TNZ and insult someone's parentage...

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Well, I'm not gay, but I certainly think we are way past the time that we should have already dealt with gay issues on Star Trek. Especially on Star Trek. (And I'm not talking about just showing two hot chicks kissing.)

Of course, I think Star Trek is at its best when it challenges us as a society and pushes our buttons. Kicks us in the complacency, and all that. Since modern Trek gave up on anything more than the superficial appearance of diversity in its crews, I haven't expected the "gay" issue -- or any other issue -- to be tackled in a long time.

You just brought up the IQ curve around here rather unforgivably.

Guess I'll just go back to TNZ and insult someone's parentage...

Dennis, backhandedly calling people who don't happen to agree with you 'stupid' or implying they are of lower intelligence is trolling.

You wanna discuss the topic, fine. Make an argument. But simply calling people stupid or implying that they are mentally deficient is uncalled for, and frankly, rather beneath you.

Next time it will be a warning for trolling.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think that what Samuel T. Cogley posted made was better reasoned and expressed than what anyone else here has posted in this topic and showed some real sense of perspective. Most other posters in this topic, including myself, have repeated what is said every time "gays in 'Star Trek'" comes up, including the ever-popular trolling line "maybe homosexuality will be cured."

And I think - I know - that Samuel T. Cogley is smarter than most of us here, certainly including myself. He demonstrates it every day on this BBS.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

^ How ironic it is, Dennis, that I have been the one defending you in the BR for MONTHS, claiming how much you've changed. And now, here you are, playing games with me.

What we KNOW is that Cogley is a brilliant writer and has a wickedly great sense of humor. But unless you have personally administered IQ tests to every poster in this thread and are professionally qualified to interpret the results of said tests, you cannot possibly make an assessment as to his IQ in relation to other posters.

So do me a favor, knock off the BS, and stop trolling.

Thanks.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Well, I'm not really sure what happened here, but just to set the record straight (Ha!), I haven't even had a chance to read most of the posts in this thread. I just picked one post and responded to that one. So (for once ) my comments were not meant to single out anyone. I haven't even had time to read PKTrekGirl's threads yet.

I haven't read all of Dennis' posts yet, either, but it looked to me like he was giving a to my post more than he was trying to insult anyone. If there's more going on than that, I don't know what it is. Nor, I think, do I want to know.

This is a controversial issue where we know that there will be little consensus.

My thoughts are just that. My thoughts. Give them as much or as little weight as you like.

The only one who knows that I am always right is me. I can't expect everyone else to realize that. Not yet, anyway.

Seriously, where is Rodney King when we need him.

 

[martin]

Why is everyone assuming that including gay people into the film, requires some kind of obvious point, or making it an issue.

Why not just include two men or two women holding hands in the background walking down a corridor or in the ship/station lounge, without having to make it an issue, just as you may see hetero couples when walking into a restaurant or bar?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

oops -- accidental post

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Why is everyone assuming that including gay people into the film, requires some kind of obvious point, or making it an issue.

Why not just include two men or two women holding hands in the background walking down a corridor or in the ship/station lounge, without having to make it an issue, just as you may see hetero couples when walking into a restaurant or bar?

And I think that's what it's going to have to be at this point.

The main reason not to have a big "homosexuality" theme in Star Trek XI is that it's too late.

Don't get me wrong. The issues are still here in our culture. (And in this thread.) But it's pretty much too late for Star Trek to address it in the way Star Trek does best. (Used to do best, anyway.)

Star Trek has had 700 or 800 hours in which to stake its "homosexuality" claim, and it waited. And waited. And waited.

And then a bunch of other movies and television series got there first. It's too late for Star Trek to be groundbreaking in this area.

So it only has two choices left. Do the homosexuality issue in an amazing way that has never been done before, or just find a way to indicate that there are gay people in Starfleet and it's just not a big deal to anyone.

The former seems unlikely for a variety of reasons. I think, at a minimum, Star Trek is long overdue in doing the latter. And it would be so simple. BSG just handled it with ease on "Razor": Gay people exist. They are in professional positions. No one bats an eye. Business as usual.

And the beauty of doing it in Star Trek XI, as a prequel, is that it has the added benefit of stating that it was no big deal from the very beginning. Especially since no later episode or movie contradicts this.

It's harder with gays than it is with race. Do we want to show black people who are professional officers on the bridge? No problem! Cast a black guy. Put him on the bridge. The statement is made, even if he has no dialog and/or takes no actions.

In order to let us know that an officer is gay, we pretty much need to see some action which indicates that and/or some dialog that confirms it. That's not to say that we would need much. It can be done quickly and easily. And just because it is harder to do than show someone of a different race, does that mean they shouldn't make the effort? No. Conversely, does that mean that the whole story would have to be ABOUT homosexuality. Again, no.

Most of people's "logic" about why it should or should not be done is tied up in their own emotion. Are you too eager to see it? Too eager not to see it? Ambivalent? That's your own personal issue. Not logic. Not reason.

And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. It's human.

It's pretty much the same with the Shatner issue. It's just as easy to have him in Star Trek XI as it is not to have him in it. To the extent that you take a strong position on the Shatner issue, that is your own personal baggage speaking. Not reason.

It's just as easy to have a gay character (or characters) as it is to have none. Take your positions, but realize that you are most likely speaking of your own personal agenda.

You may have your reasons why you want or don't want to see gays in Star Trek XI. The reasons may be personal, political, religious, etc. And they may or may not be valid.

But this is a Star Trek forum.

Star Trek is like Jesus. It loves and accepts everybody. IDIC. Look it up. So if you are arguing on behalf of Star Trek, the gays are already there. They've been there all along. And they are a necessary part of who we are. And they are fabulous! And we love them! :thumbsup:

That might even be stronger than my own position. But we aren't talking about me. We're talking about Star Trek.

 

[Michael]

^ Wow! I totally agree. IDIC, bro.

 

[martin]

Exactly, anything to do with gay people, need not be an issue, and can be treated as any other extras meant to be couples in the background on screen. If its present in the background or upfront, but not treated any differently than any other couple, then it wont feel forced upon viewers, where it will cause little offence, and it gives something to the gay community, or any viewer struggling with their own sexuality, by giving hope of acceptance in the future, and showing it is normal.

I am from the UK, and am bi, so perhaps I am used to it not being a big issue, where as America can be so backward and homophobic in some states and regions, that people see it differently.

 

[EnsignYoshi]

That's actually quite a lovely post Samuel T. Cogley. thx for sharing. and you're right, emotion is pretty much involved. It is the case with me. I grew up with star trek and it opened the door for me to the world of science fiction. I enjoy Sf thouroughly, share it with my friends, read about it, it cheers me up when I'm down, brings me to fun forums and allows me to read interesting posts , ...

I'm also gay and star trek seems to have a "they don't exist in the perfect future"-attitude. Which I find quite hurtfull, since the show I love reflects a sad truth. some people don't want us to exist. that we have no place in the future. And this in the show which is supposed to be about equality, hope, the human adventure, the future as we want it to be, being better then ourselves, morals,...

People often complain that there is another "gay character thread". The thing is, I don't want to see these threads anymore either. I just wish they could confirm once and for all that homosexuality exists in the star trek universe. Whoopi Goldberg got hope out of seeing uhura playing. Many GLBT persons look for people to look up to, to relate to, to imagine travelling along with tem in the stars to say it kinda mellow . However we (sounds so getto when I say we) are not felt welcome, or we get lines like "maybe we cured it". Which I find personally a disgusting thing to say. I am not sick, I have no disease, I'm firing on all cilinders, to say cure is to say there is something wrong with us.

I'm not quite sure I can decently explain my point. I try but it's not always easy (dutch english transations can be hard ). For me homosexuality is as normal as it gets. I consider myself normal, I do no feel myself different from anybody else, and do not like being felt different or excluded.

A lot of people always say, you can't have a gay character in the movie just for him being there. I always found that an odd defense, cause to me it suggests distinction. There are a lot of straight characters in all the star treks who are just there. And I just want to see a gay character who is just there.

Let's say you got the promenade on DS9, a lot of people walking around. Some straight, some gay. But the gay ones can't be in there cause they don't have a storyline purpose or enough development? that's distinction.
I don't see distinction between straight and gay, but in star trek there is distinction. Straight characters can JUST be shown, but gay characters can't just be shown.

It's kinda like that south park episode where they had a racially discriminating flag of white people hanging a black man, whereas the children saw people hanging another person without distinction.

If they were to put a gay character in star trek (or some form of acknowledgement and not the bogus straight persons in a womens body kiss from jadzia) some would see THE gay person. Whereas others would see a person who happens to be gay. It is the latter I want.

I hope I'm making any sense here.


Also I'd like to apologize to PKtrekgirl if I may have insulted her. I meant no disrespect. As I mentioned earlier, it is an emotional issue for me and I can get pretty riled up about it, and some people on this forum just keep pissing me off (with their homophobic bullcrap and the 'they cured it shit'), and I didn't quite got to which side of the argument you belonged. I got defensive about it. In any case, I meant no disrespect

Btw I can highly recommend the starfleet academy comic book series from marvel. It has jewish and gay characters and has very good stories to boot!

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I'm not quite sure I can decently explain my point.

You explained yourself just fine. And I totally agree.

One could easily argue that there are already plenty of gay people on Star Trek. Statistically, there would have to be.

But to those who don't want anything more than that I ask, "What's the harm in having some simple confirmation of that fact?"

EnsignYoshi seeks validation in a fictional universe that he has come to love. A universe that, at worst, rejects him, and at best, doesn't acknowledge his presence (and yet proudly professes Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations). For those of us who already see ourselves existing in that fictional -- and hopefully someday, real -- utopian future, what's so wrong with others wanting to know that they'll be along for the ride?

As much as a straight man can understand, EnsignYoshi, I understand.

And I am confident that someday you will get your wish, hopefully sooner rather than later.

I'm in the camp that believes a lot of those crew members are gay already, so we're halfway there.

 

[TheCanon72]

DS9 can have gay characters but not TOS

Being Gay is about Sex

I like the idea of 2 men or 2 women holding hands. :thumbsup:

Better yet, of different species.

1 Andorian man/1 Human man

1 Tellarite woman/ 1 Vulcan woman

:thumbsup:

 

[EnsignRicky]

DS9 can have gay characters but not TOS

Being Gay is about Sex

I like the idea of 2 men or 2 women holding hands. :thumbsup:

Better yet, of different species.

1 Andorian man/1 Human man

1 Tellarite woman/ 1 Vulcan woman

:thumbsup:

No offense, but I thought homosexuality, hetrosexuality and bi-sexuality was pretty much all about sex; Anything less would just be asexuality.