I grew up watching star trek reruns in the late 70's. As a child I believed everything the show was telling me. That in the future it will not matter what you are but who you are on the inside. That mankind will have evolved.
From the moment star trek went off air, through all of the movies and
up to the last series, The Gay community has begged for ONE gay character from a show that is suppose to inclusion.
In a interview done on AfterElton, the movie's creators flat out said no to having a gay character on the movie(not even a non major character).
I'm done.
I will not spend my money to support something that has gone out of it's way for the last 30 years to pretend that I do not exsist.
I grew up watching star trek reruns in the late 70's. As a child I believed everything the show was telling me. That in the future it will not matter what you are but who you are on the inside. That mankind will have evolved.
Keep believing. Just don't expect to see it in your lifetime, I'm afraid. :(
If it matters at all, I'm a heterosexual male and I couldn't care less that you're gay. Further, I'll say so to anyone who will listen in any appropriate context. There are more of us every day.
From the moment star trek went off air, through all of the movies and
up to the last series, The Gay community has begged for ONE gay character from a show that is suppose to inclusion.
In a interview done on AfterElton, the movie's creators flat out said no to having a gay character on the movie(not even a non major character).
I'm done.
I will not spend my money to support something that has gone out of it's way for the last 30 years to pretend that I do not exsist.
That is your decision, and I respect your right to make it. However, choices get made every day that put commerce before justice. In the grand scheme of things, this one is relatively benign. I'm far more bothered by the fact that, as a species, we produce plasma TVs when children are starving. Each of us must balance what we wish to support (or not support) with practical considerations. For my part, I think not having a gay character *anywhere* in Star Trek canon is pretty pathetic, but I'm not going to boycott the movie over it.
But I will speak up in support of your point: Over a 40 year period, not having a single gay character is statistically unlikely enough to point to deliberate exclusion. Which sucks.
Saw this post and wanted to add a comment.
From a marketing point of view, ST missed the boat and should develop a mini-episode cycle encompassing this. That said, check out this:
http://io9.com/5113745/long+suppressed-gay-star-trek-episode-comes-out
Evidently it WAS planned but suppressed at the top level. Given that the existing fan base allowed android-humanoid relations and humanoid-alien relations, this should be a non-issue.
Just my 2cents.
|
That is a pretty lame reason to not see the movie, it's like saying you don't support US troops because the military doesn’t allow gays in the military. Just because none of the shows or movies had a main character that is gay doesn’t mean that there aren't any gay members of starfleet or that starfleet command has an anti-gay policy. All it means is that the studio and the writers believe that the star trek fanbase isn't ready for a gay officer in the movie.
|
I have to agree.
Star Trek--first interracial kiss on t.v.
When Nichele Nichols told MLK Jr. she was thinking about leaving Star Trek, he said she had to stay because it's (I think) the only show on t.v. that portrays an African American in a professional capacity.
It's entirely in the spirit of what Roddenberry was doing, and I think they ought to.
There was an episode where Ryker had a relationship with an alien from a species whose culture expressly forbade sexual dimorphic behavior and/or expression or something; I guess it's not entirely the same thing.
|
|
Ok, so every show/movie/band/play/comic book/RPG/whatever MUST have at least one each of the following, or it is a sin to watch:
A gay character.
A black character.
A woman character.
A Hispanic character.
An atheistic left-handed lesbian Eskimo character. (extra points for naming the reference)
An Indian character (both South Asian and native American)
An East Asian character.
A Muslim character.
A Jewish character.
A Buddhist character.
A pagan character.
A vegan character.
(Did I miss any?)
The villain must be played by a White male Christian character (as they are the only group allowed to be completely vilified by the PC crowd).
Hmmm, looks like I'll have plenty of time to catch up on naps...
well dax and crusher both had gay scenes . Dax more then crusher really
|
|
well dax and crusher both had gay scenes . Dax more then crusher really
Dax was a body-snatcher, so it could try out how the other half live.
And Odo was a shapeshifter. I don't know if he had any restrictions, but considering he used to sleep in a bucket, I suspect not.
If I had total control of my shape, I'd be doing some wild experimenting. I wouldn't just be flip-flopping between male/female, I'd be acting out every hentai tentacle-beast anime out there.
|
OP, I think you have a legitimate complaint. Star Trek, which over the years has addressed so many different social issues, has no openly gay characters; they've been excluded. Being excluded from a show whose message is "in the future, we all can get along and no one is excluded" must hurt. ST, which has led in so many areas, has failed to lead in this. Because of this, I respect your decision to break with the franchise, even if it is not the decision I'd make.
But there are two points I'd like you to consider, and they're part of the reason I'm not ready to give up on ST even though it has not led the way for including gays:
1) The show's message may be one of harmony, but its subtext was always conflict. Not all peoples and groups have gotten a fair shake on the show because of this, and while in one episode we may see an allusive portrayal of the social condition (black-white vs. white-black man) in another we'll see a farcical, degrading stereotype (Mudd's wife).
2)The messenger (ST) is fallible, but the message ("Go boldly where no one has gone before") is still good. Even if you quit ST, I hope you'd take that part of it with you, and live long and prosper by it. :)
well dax and crusher both had gay scenes . Dax more then crusher reallyDax was a body-snatcher, so it could try out how the other half live.
And Odo was a shapeshifter. I don't know if he had any restrictions, but considering he used to sleep in a bucket, I suspect not.
If I had total control of my shape, I'd be doing some wild experimenting. I wouldn't just be flip-flopping between male/female, I'd be acting out every hentai tentacle-beast anime out there.
Well the one I am thinking of was her and another woman, Didn't end well as the other woman left so they would not be outcasts( reliving past lives is a no no)
But that's the only gay storyline that pops to mind.
A gay character.
A black character.
A woman character.
A Hispanic character.
An atheistic left-handed lesbian Eskimo character. (extra points for naming the reference)
An Indian character (both South Asian and native American)
An East Asian character.
A Muslim character.
A Jewish character.
A Buddhist character.
A pagan character.
A vegan character.(Did I miss any?)
A Nazi.
(Everything is better with Nazis anyway.)(mind you, I'm Austrian)
space Nazis. yep sounds like a go
|
|
No, no, no. You got it wrong! It's Everything's better with Princesses!
Of course, Indiana Jones has nazis and princesses, so it's all good.
Edit: Maybe it should be: everything's better with Harrison Ford.
Ok, so every show/movie/band/play/comic book/RPG/whatever MUST have at least one each of the following, or it is a sin to watch:
A gay character.
A black character.
A woman character.
A Hispanic character.
An atheistic left-handed lesbian Eskimo character. (extra points for naming the reference)
An Indian character (both South Asian and native American)
An East Asian character.
A Muslim character.
A Jewish character.
A Buddhist character.
A pagan character.
A vegan character.(Did I miss any?)
The villain must be played by a White male Christian character (as they are the only group allowed to be completely vilified by the PC crowd).
Hmmm, looks like I'll have plenty of time to catch up on naps...
Ahhh- poor wee WASP- feeling a bit put upon are we?
I'll tell you what, why don't we all just hide when you come along- maybe swing a cowbell or something to give us non-Texans the heads up. After all, everything is better with more cowbell.
OP, I think you have a legitimate complaint. Star Trek, which over the years has addressed so many different social issues, has no openly gay characters; they've been excluded. Being excluded from a show whose message is "in the future, we all can get along and no one is excluded" must hurt. ST, which has led in so many areas, has failed to lead in this. Because of this, I respect your decision to break with the franchise, even if it is not the decision I'd make.
But there are two points I'd like you to consider, and they're part of the reason I'm not ready to give up on ST even though it has not led the way for including gays:
1) The show's message may be one of harmony, but its subtext was always conflict. Not all peoples and groups have gotten a fair shake on the show because of this, and while in one episode we may see an allusive portrayal of the social condition (black-white vs. white-black man) in another we'll see a farcical, degrading stereotype (Mudd's wife).
2)The messenger (ST) is fallible, but the message ("Go boldly where no one has gone before") is still good. Even if you quit ST, I hope you'd take that part of it with you, and live long and prosper by it. :)
Also, keep in mind that Rick Berman, the source of that injunction, is not longer associated with the franchise.
|
|
Ok, so every show/movie/band/play/comic book/RPG/whatever MUST have at least one each of the following, or it is a sin to watch:
A gay character.
A black character.
A woman character.
A Hispanic character.
An atheistic left-handed lesbian Eskimo character. (extra points for naming the reference)
An Indian character (both South Asian and native American)
An East Asian character.
A Muslim character.
A Jewish character.
A Buddhist character.
A pagan character.
A vegan character.(Did I miss any?)
The villain must be played by a White male Christian character (as they are the only group allowed to be completely vilified by the PC crowd).
Hmmm, looks like I'll have plenty of time to catch up on naps...
Ahhh- poor wee WASP- feeling a bit put upon are we?
I'll tell you what, why don't we all just hide when you come along- maybe swing a cowbell or something to give us non-Texans the heads up. After all, everything is better with more cowbell.
Um, I'm the pagan...
;)
Roddenberry is dead, any "message" Star Trek had died with him. Berman ruined the franchise, and Abrams is under no obligation to follow in Roddenberry's footsteps.
Star Trek is just any other franchise now, sorry to break it to everyone.
|
|
After watching this trailer you guys really don't think this'll be a good movie? Trailer 3 is pretty exceptional looking. I'm a guy who grew up on ST reruns. I knew all the lines, I knew stardates, ship models and specifications, divergences between show canon and novels canon--as a teen I was about as die hard as they come (while maintaining my superhunk status, sanity, and suave sophistication).
Anyway, what I've gleaned of this new film isn't much different from what would have been a great novel in the late 80s early 90s (back when there was a new Trek novel each month). What's with all the hate, especially for something none of you have actually seen?
I will not be going to see this movie, because it will cost $15 per person.
Instead, I will wait until I can rent the DVD for $1, or watch it for free on TV.
|
|
I will not be going to see this movie, because it will cost $15 per person.
Instead, I will wait until I can rent the DVD for $1, or watch it for free on TV.
Ouch! I did notice when I was home for Christmas that the theatre had increased its prices--it cost $22 for my 5 year old and I to see The Tale of Despereaux. Popcorn and a drink were another $11 :-(
Tickets here in Korea are still around $7 US.
|
|
Ok, so every show/movie/band/play/comic book/RPG/whatever MUST have at least one each of the following, or it is a sin to watch:
A gay character.
A black character.
A woman character.
A Hispanic character.
An atheistic left-handed lesbian Eskimo character. (extra points for naming the reference)
An Indian character (both South Asian and native American)
An East Asian character.
A Muslim character.
A Jewish character.
A Buddhist character.
A pagan character.
A vegan character.(Did I miss any?)
The villain must be played by a White male Christian character (as they are the only group allowed to be completely vilified by the PC crowd).
Hmmm, looks like I'll have plenty of time to catch up on naps...
Ahhh- poor wee WASP- feeling a bit put upon are we?
I'll tell you what, why don't we all just hide when you come along- maybe swing a cowbell or something to give us non-Texans the heads up. After all, everything is better with more cowbell.
Naah, it just gets tedious after a while.
Tell you what.....it would be real helpful if, instead of a comics code authority, you could put a"Warning--hamfisted morality play, inartfully executed; read with caution." In the future I'd really appreciate my propaganda either more subtle or with a warning label so I don't have to go into the experience actually expecting a decent story.
Ok, so every show/movie/band/play/comic book/RPG/whatever MUST have at least one each of the following, or it is a sin to watch:
A gay character.
A black character.
A woman character.
A Hispanic character.
An atheistic left-handed lesbian Eskimo character. (extra points for naming the reference)
An Indian character (both South Asian and native American)
An East Asian character.
A Muslim character.
A Jewish character.
A Buddhist character.
A pagan character.
A vegan character.(Did I miss any?)
The villain must be played by a White male Christian character (as they are the only group allowed to be completely vilified by the PC crowd).
Hmmm, looks like I'll have plenty of time to catch up on naps...
Ahhh- poor wee WASP- feeling a bit put upon are we?
I'll tell you what, why don't we all just hide when you come along- maybe swing a cowbell or something to give us non-Texans the heads up. After all, everything is better with more cowbell.Naah, it just gets tedious after a while.
Tell you what.....it would be real helpful if, instead of a comics code authority, you could put a
"Warning--hamfisted morality play, inartfully executed; read with caution." In the future I'd really appreciate my propaganda either more subtle or with a warning label so I don't have to go into the experience actually expecting a decent story.
touche, Heathy.
At least the new movie looks like it has more in common with Wrath of Khan then The Motion Picture.And apologies to houstonderek- I was tired from a long day and had just had a belly full of being forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh's bile.
Back in the day, when I worked as a separator on the old Marvel/ Paramount Comics of Star Trek, one story thread covered a homosexual relationship. From what I could gather afterwards, the outrage and furore was simply out of all proportion, so I'd not be surprised if the powers that be were unwilling to get their fingers burnt again.
Over 40 years, five T.V. series, something like ten (eleven?) movies, there has never been a single openly gay character on Star Trek (of which I am aware). As I stated earlier, that strikes me as statistically improbable enough to imply deliberate exclusion. So, while I appreciate that political correctness does sometimes run amok, I don't think it is fair to say that is the case here. Or am I missing something?
|
|
And apologies to houstonderek- I was tired from a long day and had just had a belly full of being forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh's bile.
I don't blame you, then :)
But, I apologize for being a bit snippy, too. I'm not Anglo-Saxon (mostly Sicilian, actually, and 1/4 Iroquis (my grandfather was Seneca, 100%), with a dash of czech and irish thrown in for "white boy" cred, I guess), nor am I Christian, so I wasn't getting in my feelings about the WASP thing.
It's just every time I see something like this, I wonder how anyone goes to see anything. If a character doesn't openly profess his or her sexuality in a movie, and doesn't have a love scene that nails it down, they could be ANYTHING. Why does a character have to be openly, obviously gay to be gay? Edit: And, if they're openly, obviously gay, doesn't that lend itself to accusations of stereotyping? Most gay guys I know aren't the least bit obvious, they aren't swishing and lisping and carrying on like Jack in that TV show.
And, the other thing is, what's wrong with just having a movie be a sci-fi romp without having to champion everyone's personal issue du jour? What,m exactly, would having an openly gay character add to the story? Does there need to be that subtext to make it a good movie?
Seriously.
space Nazis. yep sounds like a go
How many episodes of ST were the Nazis on? I can think of at least three. O:)
On a special feature Burton said he met Goldberg and she was congratulating him for being on ST (this led to her role eventually). Both of them were so happy as kids to see Nichols in her role that they loved the show. When he directed an episode he had the first female black astronaut do a cameo on the show, who then shared her decision to join NASA was based on seeing Niccols in ST.
ST has also done a number of episodes on issues concerning GLBTQ, so it has not been totally ignored. (I think the aforementioned kiss was the first woman/woman kiss on prime-time right?).
Very few of the characters were in long relationships. One episode was usually the max for a relationship right? That's just the nature of TV.
Still OP, I agree with your choice and the DECISION by the admin is reason to organize a boycott.
If a character doesn't openly profess his or her sexuality in a movie, and doesn't have a love scene that nails it down, they could be ANYTHING. Why does a character have to be openly, obviously gay to be gay? Edit: And, if they're openly, obviously gay, doesn't that lend itself to accusations of stereotyping?
I admit that hadn't occurred to me, but then again, the sexuality of various other characters wasn't ambiguous. We know Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Picard, Riker, Troi, Crusher, Data(!), Yar, etc. (I didn't watch the later shows) are heterosexual without them making a point of openly professing their heterosexuality. I think over 80 or more episodes, those details come out naturally. Irrespective of one's opinon on the moral implications of homosexuality, it seems hard to deny that at least a few of these folks would probably have been gay.
If nothing else, consider the sexual orientation of the actors (though I have no idea how selecting from subsets like "starfleet officers" or "hollywood actors" would skew the results).
Hmm, any mentally disabled people? Any handicapped people? How about grossly overweight people?
Perhaps EVERYONE should boycott!!!!
|
I suspect that Roddenberry would have 'gone there,' had he not died. He was the one who decided to put a dude in a skirt wandering around the Enterprise in the first Next Generation episode.
In a way, the various series have seemed almost like a progression of PC-ness in casting. Kirk, macho white male. Picard, scholarly old French dude. Sisko, macho black male. Janeway, macho white woman. And then there was Archer, who liked to sit on his bed in his quarters with his engineering officer watching mostly naked men splash around in a pool, but was *totally* not gay. Nuh uh! (I've always wondered if Archer was written to be gay, and then they shied away from it at the last moment and showed him kissing girls just to avoid the blowback and threats of boycotting their advertisers and all that from the Christian Coalition. The country was going through a pretty reactionary time, with hate crimes and anti-gay legislation and million dollar fines for 'wardrobe malfunctions' on the rise, and the ratings were already sucking without the controversy of people who wouldn't otherwise have watched the show anyway calling it 'indecent' or immoral or part of the ebil gay liberal agenda being forced upon our chilluns..)
Dax kinda 'coded' gay for me anyway. Always strutting around like a man, clearly reliving her Curzon Dax relationship with Sisko, and yet occasionally openly flirting with him, which just vibed sixteen different flavors of badwrongfun. Sisko made a point of calling that unbearably HOT young woman 'old man,' as if to remind himself that he'd spent over a decade already being the *student* of this suddenly ravishing transgendered beauty. But, having a species that's inherently transgendered isn't the same as having a gay human, I suppose. It's kind of a 'safe' choice, like having a half-black and white dude and a half-white and black dude fighting to the death over racial issues on the bridge of the Enterprise, if not quite as anvilicious as Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.
The issue itself could have been played out with Vulcans as well. As physical attraction is supposed to play absolutely no part in their marriage and mating procedures, with pre-arranged marriages and hormonally induced mating, there would, in theory, not be a single 'gay' Vulcan. Their marriages are arranged to make babies, when they themselves are children, so it seems profoundly unlikely that a Vulcan who found herself attracted to another hot Vulcan babe would find any societally acceptable outlet for those feelings.
That would certainly be an interesting twist, to have an episode that let slip how humans are more societally evolved in some ways than the Vulcan uber-race!
On the other hand, it would be even cooler if one of the characters got into a one-night stand kind of relationship with a same-sex character, and nobody said anything about it, or even seemed to notice, suggesting that, in the 24th century, nobody gives a crap about that sort of thing anymore, which, IMO, would be an even better 'message' to send. It's not like the majority of us heterosexual men actually fall in love with boobs. It's the person behind the boobs that matters. If all we wanted were boobs, we'd buy bags of silicon and play with them, which would be a hell of a lot cheaper than dating!
|
|
If a character doesn't openly profess his or her sexuality in a movie, and doesn't have a love scene that nails it down, they could be ANYTHING. Why does a character have to be openly, obviously gay to be gay? Edit: And, if they're openly, obviously gay, doesn't that lend itself to accusations of stereotyping?I admit that hadn't occurred to me, but then again, the sexuality of various other characters wasn't ambiguous. We know Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Picard, Riker, Troi, Crusher, Data(!), Yar, etc. (I didn't watch the later shows) are heterosexual without them making a point of openly professing their heterosexuality. I think over 80 or more episodes, those details come out naturally. Irrespective of one's opinon on the moral implications of homosexuality, it seems hard to deny that at least a few of these folks would probably have been gay.
If nothing else, consider the sexual orientation of the actors (though I have no idea how selecting from subsets like "starfleet officers" or "hollywood actors" would skew the results).
I understand, and George Takei is a good example, but my point is, you can't really bring that up in a 90 minute movie without exploring it. And, if the point of the movie is to be a sci-fi romp, why put in extra minutes that take away from the flow of the story? They aren't making "Brokeback Enterprise", after all.
And, as far as boycotts and what-not, remember, whether we agree or not (and I don't, btw), 75% of the world still thinks homosexuality is a sin. They have more money. Hell, apparently 40% of the "liberals" in California aren't gay supporters. Ignorance is a funny thing, but the ignorant out-number the enlightened, remember that.
Hmm, any mentally disabled people? Any handicapped people? How about grossly overweight people?
Perhaps EVERYONE should boycott!!!!
And yet those are all reasonable criteria for baring military service, whereas sexual orientation is not.
As I originally stated, I have no plans to boycott. But, like it or not, the OP has a point.
I understand, and George Takei is a good example, but my point is, you can't really bring that up in a 90 minute movie without exploring it. And, if the point of the movie is to be a sci-fi romp, why put in extra minutes that take away from the flow of the story? They aren't making "Brokeback Enterprise", after all.
Wow...thanks for that image. :P
Spock to Kirk: Why can't I quit you?
|
|
George Takei is, and he seems to bear no animosity to the franchise. I've heard him say he was frustrated at times because he had to be closeted to get work for most of his career, but the opportunity to portay an Asian as a positive role model on American TV was also an oppportunity to do a lot of good, coming out of the "Fu Manchu" era of television. Then again, he wasn't really involved with ST much after TOS.
|
|
Good stuff
I just want to latch on to the last part. This isn't a 40 minute weekly episode of a longer series where many themes can be explored. This is a 90 minute relaunch of a moribund franchise. They need to appeal to a wide audience, and, pointing to your Archer example, pissing off the larger of two groups is bad business (there are more Christians in America than GLBT Family, frankly).
Much ado about little, I'm afraid.
What exactly, would having an openly gay character add to the story?
While I totally sympathizing with the feelings and intentions of the original poster, I also agree with this. While it's unfortunate, even sad, if the movie's creators deliberately made this decision to be exclusive, I can't say it surprises me when they're making a prequel to a series with no openly gay characters. Sure, they could retcon a few in, but I could see how that might feel tacked on. Really, let the artist make the film he wants - and succeed or hang himself based on the results. I know Star Trek was groundbreaking once and commiserate with those who have lived to see the luster of the 23rd century fade, but honestly I think we're going tho have to look beyond the Enterprise for our revolutions nowadays.
And really, since Takei came out, is there anyone who doesn't see Sulu as gay? Personally, I like seeing the old episodes featuring him now, it feels like the world has finally been let in on an awesome in-joke.
|
|
Or am I missing something?
Your missing something. If the character was ensign smith and he just happened to be gay it is one thing. If on the other hand, they have a gay character and he is ensign smith, this is a fallicy. The show, and it is a show, should be about stories. Preferably good ones. If it happens to have a gay character in it so be it. But to force the situation is a bad as not including one where they should be included.
Edit: Much more eloquently put by the above post.
Best News I heard all day.
|
|
And really, since Takei came out, is there anyone who doesn't see Sulu as gay? Personally, I like seeing the old episodes featuring him now, it feels like the world has finally been let in on an awesome in-joke.
Oh, like you couldn't tell by the way he was prancing around with that rapier in that one episode. ;)
I don't like gratuitous anything in movies, if it takes away from the story. It would be like me complaining there isn't a strong, devoted married black man in "Milk" I can point to as a role model for my nephews...
Hmm, any mentally disabled people? Any handicapped people? How about grossly overweight people?
Perhaps EVERYONE should boycott!!!!
And yet those are all reasonable criteria for baring military service, whereas sexual orientation is not.
As I originally stated, I have no plans to boycott. But, like it or not, the OP has a point.
The point I was attempting to make is that the film does not diminish someone simply because they are not "included" in representation.
I am grossly overweight. I'm never represented in anything unless it is the target of jokes and slapstick humor.
The simple fact of the matter is, with regards to homosexuality, not everyone accepts it. So sorry, but that is the truth. Boycott it all you freaking want. Remember "you never go full retard" ? Well, that got that movie boycotted...yet, oddly enough, the movie did VERY well.
Our society is not perfect. Humans are FAR from perfect. Cry all you want, hollywood will continue to offend in the name of "decency".
|
|
I will not be going to see this movie, because it will cost $15 per person.
Instead, I will wait until I can rent the DVD for $1, or watch it for free on TV.
Ouch! I did notice when I was home for Christmas that the theatre had increased its prices--it cost $22 for my 5 year old and I to see The Tale of Despereaux. Popcorn and a drink were another $11 :-(
Tickets here in Korea are still around $7 US.
Wait... I have not been in the states for 6 years... going back soonish..
Did the prices really go up that much?...
If that is true.. rather watch the movie on my 52" HDTV 1080P on Blu-Ray with 7.1 surround sound!
The point I was attempting to make is that the film does not diminish someone simply because they are not "included" in representation.I am grossly overweight. I'm never represented in anything unless it is the target of jokes and slapstick humor.
The simple fact of the matter is, with regards to homosexuality, not everyone accepts it. So sorry, but that is the truth. Boycott it all you freaking want. Remember "you never go full retard" ? Well, that got that movie boycotted...yet, oddly enough, the movie did VERY well.
Our society is not perfect. Humans are FAR from perfect. Cry all you want, hollywood will continue to offend in the name of "decency".
I love how many people seem to define "cry" as "people talking about things that aren't of immediate concern to ME."
It's called compassion; try it some time. Jeesh.
I love how many people seem to define "cry" as "people talking about things that aren't of immediate concern to ME."It's called compassion; try it some time. Jeesh.
I am curious...did you actually read what I had to say? Please try re-reading it.
What I said was, there are LOTS of people not represented by hollywood as being a cross section of the demographic. I added in the commrodary of stating my own personal situation and how I identify with him. What I then did was state that hollywood, which bows to the mighty gold piece, bows to what "most" people view as being "normal"...as "acceptable"...and that whinging about it won't change a damned thing.
Boycott. I am certain that the USD10 will not be missed in the buckets, and buckets of cash the swine of an industry will be wallowing in. This is where my comment about "you never go full retard" came in...because apparently you didn't read what I had to say.
I love how many people seem to define "cry" as "people talking about things that aren't of immediate concern to ME."It's called compassion; try it some time. Jeesh.
I am curious...did you actually read what I had to say? Please try re-reading it.
What I said was, there are LOTS of people not represented by hollywood as being a cross section of the demographic. I added in the commrodary of stating my own personal situation and how I identify with him. What I then did was state that hollywood, which bows to the mighty gold piece, bows to what "most" people view as being "normal"...as "acceptable"...and that whinging about it won't change a damned thing.
Boycott. I am certain that the USD10 will not be missed in the buckets, and buckets of cash the swine of an industry will be wallowing in. This is where my comment about "you never go full retard" came in...because apparently you didn't read what I had to say.
Actually, I did. You apparently didn't read what I said (multiple times in this thread!): That *I* have no intention of boycotting. I don't think boycotts are (generally) effective, and I also think they are many, and far more serious, miscarriages of justice going on every day that are more deserving of attention. I was simply expressing support for the OP's feelings that people of his sexual orientation are under-represented on Star Trek, and pointing out that his perception is borne out by what we know of rates of homosexuality, etc.
In any case, we seem unable to communicate, so I'm moving on to other threads.
Actually, I did.
And as a result, you were putting your own agenda ahead of what I was saying, which oddly enough, is along the same lines of what you are saying....
You apparently didn't read what I said (multiple times in this thread!): That *I* have no intention of boycotting. I don't think boycotts are (generally) effective, and I also think they are many, and far more serious, miscarriages of justice going on every day that are more deserving of attention. I was simply expressing support for the OP's feelings that people of his sexual orientation are under-represented on Star Trek, and pointing out that his perception is borne out by what we know of rates of homosexuality, etc.In any case, we seem unable to communicate, so I'm moving on to other threads.
I was talking in reference to the OP...I was commiserating with him...and offering him my thoughts on the overall scenario...not to you...who the hell are you ? :)
And with regards to failure to communicate...well, ciao...enjoy the other threads!!!