Shouting??? A Grip???
Certainly an intelligent person such as yourself saw what I was trying to get at with the example. But allow me to give another, lets say a same sex couple walking down the street holding hands or a same sex couple picking a child up from ball practice. Are those better examples? And yes it would be better to have a fleshed out character but when you're a starving dog I'll take even the scraps.
Thanks for not using full cap shouting text. It's a lot easier to read.
You say you'll be happy with scraps but I have my doubts. Scraps aren't satisfying, not when other shows are doing more. And not when Star Trek has already provided scraps. Because that's what I'd characterize what Star Trek has provided so far, in official comics and novels and in occasional sexuality-exploring episodes. I submit that it's the fact that they haven't provided more than scraps that is the real issue.
Why the fixation on Star Trek, and Star Trek background no less, when gay characters have achieved much more in Babylon 5 and, I'm led to believe because I haven't seen any of season 4 yet, Battlestar Galactica and how about Torchwood?
To use a message board phrase, hasn't Star Trek been ninja'd on this one?
I know, from your first post, that Star Trek has a particular spot in your heart as a 1970s fanboy. It's when I started watching it too (maybe early 70s for me). But the producers of the show let its specifically inclusionary tone and classic sci fi theme nature go when it launched Next Gen and focused more on developing internal characters. Those ships have sailed and the mantle of cutting edge sci fi has moved on.
Why the fixation on Star Trek, and Star Trek background no less, when gay characters have achieved much more in Babylon 5 and, I'm led to believe because I haven't seen any of season 4 yet, Battlestar Galactica and how about Torchwood?
Something I noticed when I was rewatching the first season of B:5. On one episode, Ivanova wakes up and asks, "Why does my mouth always taste like old carpet?" I'll leave that up to the viewers to determine.
Something I noticed when I was rewatching the first season of B:5. On one episode, Ivanova wakes up and asks, "Why does my mouth always taste like old carpet?" I'll leave that up to the viewers to determine.
*blink* *blink*...
Why do I get the impression that you're the guy who shows up at family gatherings and occasionally makes the weird comment during conversations?
|
The gay persons in Star Trek all get to wear red shirts. ;P
No but seriously, I've seen them pan past two guys or two girls walking down the halls of the ship together discussing stuff. What's to say they aren't heading back to their shared quarters for a night of cocoa, listening to music, and a good cuddle? It just happens that the main characters aren't gay. Unfortunately the main characters were written back before there was much acceptance of gay lifestyles and the main characters were made to fit that design. Re-writing them now to make them fit more into a more enlightened society (hopefully) would be difficult and would make a lot of people mad. Including a new character that is purposefully gay also seems like a bad idea because usually Hollywood either goes with stereotypical gay (a bedazzled com badge?) or would gloss over it for brevity's sake making the gay community angry at not getting more airtime for their cause while cheesing off a good portion of their customer base.
It seems like if their is any inclusion of gay characters in a movie that it is done in either a bad stereotype, a comedic aspect, or as a bone tossed in to appease a certain demographic.... In most cases it is done badly and fails to portray a true gay person's life, doing nothing to engender a more tolerant society. I know that there are a few movies that got it right but do you really believe that Star Trek would? I don't and I'd rather not have them fail at it showing that the future is no different than today.
It's pretty lose-lose for everyone involved no matter what you do.
And that is another key issue when people find out I'm gay they say "but you don't 'act' gay". I look at them incredulously and say I'm not acting I'm just who I am. Seriously most of my friends are straight guys I behave just like the other guys and I just so happen to be gay. Apparently people have this huge stereotype in their mind that all gay people are flaming.
|
And that is another key issue when people find out I'm gay they say "but you don't 'act' gay". I look at them incredulously and say I'm not acting I'm just who I am. Seriously most of my friends are straight guys I act behave just like the other guys and I just so happen to be gay. Apparently people have this huge stereotype in their mind that all gay people are flaming.
But you don't write like a gay person.
...
...
...
Whatever the (often logical) reasons behind the dearth of homosexual protagonists in Star Trek (and popular fiction in general), I think the fact that allow it to continue says something about us that I can't say I like. And while I agree that going back *now* and making one of the main characters gay would be a bad, bad idea, I think some people are missing the point: Given the demographics, one of the main characters should have been gay from the start! That it isn't a misguided sense of political correctness that motivates people to lobby for inclusion of more gay characters in popular fiction; rather, it is a sense of fairness that leads them to ask that gay characters stop being EXCLUDED.
O ha ha you wait til they get emoticons on this message board and I'll respond in a better more sarcastic way :P
Emoticons are gay.
......
;-)
|
And that is another key issue when people find out I'm gay they say "but you don't 'act' gay". I look at them incredulously and say I'm not acting I'm just who I am. Seriously most of my friends are straight guys I behave just like the other guys and I just so happen to be gay. Apparently people have this huge stereotype in their mind that all gay people are flaming.The gay persons in Star Trek all get to wear red shirts. ;P
No but seriously, I've seen them pan past two guys or two girls walking down the halls of the ship together discussing stuff. What's to say they aren't heading back to their shared quarters for a night of cocoa, listening to music, and a good cuddle? ............. I know that there are a few movies that got it right but do you really believe that Star Trek would? I don't and I'd rather not have them fail at it showing that the future is no different than today.
It's pretty lose-lose for everyone involved no matter what you do.
Exactly my point. Who knows what the extras and the background people are up to. I know a few gay people and unless you are looking out for clues, you can't tell what orientation they are. TV and movies likes to toss about over-the-top personalities and stereotypes to make it clear what each character is about. The main dude in The Transporter....stereotypical bad-ass lead with a hard-edge and a heart. Is he gay? I don't remember any love scenes in the movies so theoretically he could be, unless I forgot about a scene or something. But unfortunately we know that if Hollywood wanted him to be portrayed as gay he would carry a man-purse, walk funny, have limp-wrists waving as he spoke, and speak with a lisp.
Kind of a "be careful what you wish for" type of clause.
Whatever the (often logical) reasons behind the dearth of homosexual protagonists in Star Trek (and popular fiction in general), I think the fact that allow it to continue says something about us that I can't say I like. And while I agree that going back *now* and making one of the main characters gay would be a bad, bad idea, I think some people are missing the point: Given the demographics, one of the main characters should have been gay from the start! That it isn't a misguided sense of political correctness that motivates people to lobby for inclusion of more gay characters in popular fiction; rather, it is a sense of fairness that leads them to ask that gay characters stop being EXCLUDED.
But by demographics in the original series, 2 of them should also have been Chinese (assuming we go by named characters Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scott, Uhura, Sulu, Chekhov, Chapel, Rand, and even adding Kyle). Yet they were excluded too.
Quite frankly, I'm having a hard time finding any Chinese characters on the other shows as well. Or Indian, Indonesian, etc.
So I don't put a lot of store in demographic arguments of how Star Trek should be. The characters aren't a pie graph reporting demographic data.
|
|
Basically, I imagine that the background characters that don't wear a sexual preference tag on them are "normal people" which includes gays, heteros, and the occasional fetishist (Yes, Spock likes his golden showers, as illogical as that sounds!).
I don't want to see Hollywood's version of gay in a movie because they will toss us Nathan Lane from "The Birdcage" instead of a good, realistic rendition. What I want is for an actor to portray a normal person who happens to be gay. When he gets home from work 20 minutes into the movie and kisses his male partner when he walks in the door people should say "oh, he must be gay", not when he throws a crying, hissy-fit because someone didn't like his pink/chartreuse/teal shirt.
Until the world and the industry starts putting real thought and care into portraying gays, I'd rather they didn't shoe-horn in awful stereotypes to try to appease a demographic that won't be pleased with the results.
Whatever the (often logical) reasons behind the dearth of homosexual protagonists in Star Trek (and popular fiction in general), I think the fact that allow it to continue says something about us that I can't say I like. And while I agree that going back *now* and making one of the main characters gay would be a bad, bad idea, I think some people are missing the point: Given the demographics, one of the main characters should have been gay from the start! That it isn't a misguided sense of political correctness that motivates people to lobby for inclusion of more gay characters in popular fiction; rather, it is a sense of fairness that leads them to ask that gay characters stop being EXCLUDED.But by demographics in the original series, 2 of them should also have been Chinese (assuming we go by named characters Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scott, Uhura, Sulu, Chekhov, Chapel, Rand, and even adding Kyle). Yet they were excluded too.
Quite frankly, I'm having a hard time finding any Chinese characters on the other shows as well. Or Indian, Indonesian, etc.
So I don't put a lot of store in demographic arguments of how Star Trek should be. The characters aren't a pie graph reporting demographic data.
No one is suggesting that every show must be an accurate demographical representation. I'm simply using demographics to point out that we *go out of our way* to exclude gay characters. That bothers me. Whether that bothers you is a separate issue.
Basically, I imagine that the background characters that don't wear a sexual preference tag on them are "normal people" which includes gays, heteros, and the occasional fetishist (Yes, Spock likes his golden showers, as illogical as that sounds!).
I don't want to see Hollywood's version of gay in a movie because they will toss us Nathan Lane from "The Birdcage" instead of a good, realistic rendition. What I want is for an actor to portray a normal person who happens to be gay. When he gets home from work 20 minutes into the movie and kisses his male partner when he walks in the door people should say "oh, he must be gay", not when he throws a crying, hissy-fit because someone didn't like his pink/chartreuse/teal shirt.
Now, don't go knocking The Birdcage or La Cage aux Folles. Part of the fun of those movies is that the one character has a particularly flamboyant personality as a drag performer, a subculture all its own, and has to play straight drag for the sake their son's relationship.
No one is suggesting that every show must be an accurate demographical representation. I'm simply using demographics to point out that we *go out of our way* to exclude gay characters. That bothers me. Whether that bothers you is a separate issue.
Is it really a case of "going out of our way" to exclude a group when surveys seem to indicate that under 10% of the population is gay?
It strikes me that the opposite may be true and that inclusion has more to do with "going out of their way". Whether or not it's valuable to do so is another question entirely, but I really can't characterize it as "going out of the way" to exlude.
Is it really a case of "going out of our way" to exclude a group when surveys seem to indicate that under 10% of the population is gay?It strikes me that the opposite may be true and that inclusion has more to do with "going out of their way". Whether or not it's valuable to do so is another question entirely, but I really can't characterize it as "going out of the way" to exlude.
I think we are going out of our way. I'm sure there is a legitimate commerical consideration at play; that is, some people are offended by homosexuality and will "change the channel." But, whatever our reasons, it seems naive to think we aren't doing it.
As I've pointed out, through all the various incarnations of Star Trek, I don't recall a single gay character among the series regulars. If I'm wrong (I may well be; I didn't even watch Enterprise), please correct me.
As for TV in general, GLAAD argues homosexuals are very under-represented on television, but I concede that it would be hard to argue they're unbiased.
As I've pointed out, through all the various incarnations of Star Trek, I don't recall a single gay character among the series regulars. If I'm wrong (I may well be; I didn't even watch Enterprise), please correct me.As for TV in general, GLAAD argues homosexuals are very under-represented on television, but it would be hard to argue they're unbiased.
I'm not aware of any either, but like I said before, I'm not particularly aware of Star Trek characters who fit some other demographic characteristics either.
I'm not privy to GLAAD's methodology of identifying LGBT characters, but out of the 650 characters they looked at, if they could ID 7 as LGBT, does that mean all of the rest positively IDed as hetero? Were any ambiguous or never portrayed with any sexual preference or is that considered the default orientation? I confess to some curiosity there and would be happier with a more direct or stated comparison.
Hmm, any mentally disabled people? Any handicapped people? How about grossly overweight people?
Perhaps EVERYONE should boycott!!!!
Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but:
In the Star Trek original series, there were a number of episodes featuring characters with mental diseases. One even centred on a mental institution in space ["Dagger of the Mind"].
Captain Christopher Pike is the first TV character of which I am aware to have been wheelchair bound. I don't recall the title of the 2-part episode, but it recycled footage from the pilot episode "The Menagerie".
Grossly overweight? Well, Cyarano Jones ["The Trouble with Tribbles"]wasn't exactly a lightweight, now was he?
There was also a dwarf character in "Plato's Stepchildren".
Edit: If memory serves, the episodes featuring Capt. Pike were titled "Court Martial."
Also, Capt. Pike may have suffered brain damage in his accident. I admit it's a bit of a stretch, but think about this: Capt. Pike was unable to communicate verbally. His wheelchair was equipped with a light that he could flash to answer yes and no questions. If he was able to flash the light, he could have communicated using Morse code, unless he was unable to do more than answer yes/no questions due to a brain injury.
Also, the mute demographic was covered in "The Empath."
"Is There, In Truth, No Beauty?" featured a blind character.
|
Maybe in the future there aren’t any gays, ever think about that. The eugenics war the created Khan may have also corrected the genes that are responsible for homosexual behavior. It also may be standard practice to 'correct' any and all medical and genetic mutations at or before birth so no homosexuals are ever born.
|
|
It might be contrary to Roddenberry’s vision but in several shows it is mentioned that genetic disease and birth defects are a thing of the past which implies a base genetic template is used to determine normal. New genetic diseases may have evolved after the base genetic was set thus some diseases may not be detected by a basic genetic screening.
Also male pattern baldness is not and has never been considered a genetic abnormality or disease on any of the shows.
|
|
It might be contrary to Roddenberry’s vision but in several shows it is mentioned that genetic disease and birth defects are a thing of the past which implies a base genetic template is used to determine normal. New genetic diseases may have evolved after the base genetic was set thus some diseases may not be detected by a basic genetic screening.
Also male pattern baldness is not and has never been considered a genetic abnormality or disease on any of the shows.
Those instances likely refer to diseases and defects that have a direct impact on the survivability and long-term health of the individual. For example, genetic factors leading to things like Parkinson's would likely be treated as they pose long-term health care problems. Homosexuality does nothing of the kind. We can infer from the multitude of other healthy genetic traits that the Eugenics wars did nothing to slow the diversity of humankind. Why would homosexuality be any different?
It has nothing to do with "normal" - if a marker indicates a health problem, it is fixed and eventually removed from the DNA pool.
And that is another key issue when people find out I'm gay they say "but you don't 'act' gay". I look at them incredulously and say I'm not acting I'm just who I am. Seriously most of my friends are straight guys I behave just like the other guys and I just so happen to be gay. Apparently people have this huge stereotype in their mind that all gay people are flaming.
Heh. None of my gay friends flounce about or call me "girlfriend."
It seems like if their is any inclusion of gay characters in a movie that it is done in either a bad stereotype, a comedic aspect, or as a bone tossed in to appease a certain demographic.... In most cases it is done badly and fails to portray a true gay person's life, doing nothing to engender a more tolerant society.
And that's the rub. If their inclusion does nothing but foster a false stereotype, I personally can do without it until someone has the balls to do it correctly... From now on, whenever I see The Transporter, I'll know what his orientation really is.
I think the reason for not seeing homosexuals is very simple. Many of characters have had "romantic" encounters with other species/cultures. Now if the portion of both populations for homosexuality is extremely small, then it becomes almost unbelievable (something like 0.125%=0.00125) that a homosexual crew member meets a homosexual (of the same sex) alien. So the choice is done for simple story reasons. Also, again if a character's sexuality is not discussed, it could be anything. I can't think of any kind of sexual relationship that was ever done with Sulu (there might have been, but I don't remember any). He did have a daughter, but Kirk asked, "When did he have time for a family." That could be a family unit of a two husbands and a daughter born of in-vetro with a woman who was willing (see stories of Clay Atkin and Michael Jackson to see how believable this could be).
|
|
TNG did feature one of the earliest same-sex kisses on television, albeit not a mouth to mouth kiss. The episode that produced it was controversial, however, and didn't do much to resolve the question of how gay-friendly Trek might be. There was a distinctly pro-gay "soapbox analogy" episode (one of Trek's most endearing and frustrating traits), but that, if anything, only makes the lack of a direct address of the issue more glaring.
|
|
Until the world and the industry starts putting real thought and care into portraying gays, I'd rather they didn't shoe-horn in awful stereotypes to try to appease a demographic that won't be pleased with the results.
In Buffy, Joss Whedon had apparently not decided until the third or fourth season, but had thought that one of the two 'sidekick' characters might 'turn out to be gay.' He threw in some suspect behavior (both characters commenting on how other's of their own gender where attractive, etc.), but finally flipped a coin or something and chose Willow. At first, it was a pretty decent portrayal, but then it became heavy-handed, with the character loudly proclaiming (repeatedly) how she was 'gay now' and 'didn't like the boys' and absolutely negated the first three seasons, in which she pined after one male character, admitted to a crush on a male mentor and had a full-blown relationship, sex and all, with another male character. Then the Andrew character was introduced, and made anyone who had ever wished for even a second that Joss had chosen differently thank the Lord that he didn't decide to turn one of the regular male characters gay, because the writing was atrocious, ham-fisted and played-for-squirms. (Unlike the above-mentioned Birdcage, where Nathan Lane's portrayal was funny, as it was *supposed* to be over-the-top, because the character was a stage-performer drag-queen. This was supposed to be 'some gay kid,' and ended up being Jar-Jar Binks levels of bad stereotyping...)
So yeah, long story short, I kinda agree that I'd rather not see gay characters shoe-horned into a show by writers who have no freaking clue how to write for them (or got their clue from Birdcage, and decided that *all* gay people had to be screaming queens).
On the other hand, if they don't even try, they'll never learn how to write for those characters, so it's a bit of a Catch 22, in that we're probably gonna see another generation of characters that are as embarassingly painful to watch as watching white actors in blackface pretending to be black is today...
I saw an interview with the guy playing Spock. He looks like a bobble-head toy. He is sooo small, he almost makes me laugh out loud -- but I don't.
The guy playing Spock bugs me. I hope he doesn't ruin the movie.
I saw an interview with the guy playing Spock. He looks like a bobble-head toy. He is sooo small, he almost makes me laugh out loud -- but I don't.
The guy playing Spock bugs me. I hope he doesn't ruin the movie.
I saw it last night and I think he does a reasonably good job. He certainly doesn't ruin the movie.
|
|
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.
It's your descision to vote with your wallet however you want, but IMO it's like saying you won't buy the new Pathfinder RPG because none of the iconics are openly gay.
We only know either set of characters in a very limited scope (silver screen or artwork in a module) and their private "off-screen" moments are kind of glossed over in favour of telling a compelling story.
Both fantasy adventurers and starfleet officers function in what are essentially meritocracies, where the sexuality of a being (of whatever type or subtype), while an important part of their identity as a person (or monster), does not significantly affect the criteria for whether they have what it takes to be heroic, good or noble (or villanous, evil and vile for that matter). What matters in the end are their choices, actions and words.
I originally wasn't going to see it, but in like the last 48 hours, something clicked inside of me and I'm excited now. Don't know why, but I am. I can't wait to see it tomorrow night in IMAX.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Like I said earlier in this thread, Roddenberry is dead, anything special about Star Trek died with him. It'd just another sci-fi franchise now, and no amount of nerdrage is going to change that, frankly.
Why do you have to put this in such a douchey way, I wonder?
I just got back from the new Star Trek movie. While I saw no hint of a gay character in the film (sorry, OP!), the movie made a TON of effort to remain true to the spirit of the original series, and even lingered overlong in the credits to dedicate the film to Gene Roddenberry and Majel Barret Roddenberry.
So why the "frankly" and the "nerdrage"?
You're just coming off as unnecessarily hostile, in my view.
Chillax, brother.
|
|
My first gut reaction to this thread was, "WTF-Sulu's gay!" Then I was like, "wait a sec...."
I think it's prolly (un)official canon in a lot of people's minds.
Kinda like when Clay Aiken came out... I was like "and..."
for some reason I can't explain Sulu always did seem gay to me.Maybe Takai did to... but that may just be in hindsight.
|
|
I have as much respect for gay rights as about any straight guy, but I see this as a really weak reason to not see a film.
I happen to vote Libertarian most of the time, I am not going to not go see a movie just because an actor in it is a hard-core big government socialist or communist. Hell, I even see Michael Moore's stuff, and I disagree with pretty much everything he's ever said or thought.
I could see if the film were openly ANTI-gay, but to not go see it just because it isn't pro-gay enough? Having your cause is great and all, but don't let it keep you from living your life!
A movie depiciting gays in it would not ness be "pro gay" just as a movie that would have a black character in it. As far as hetrosexism is concerned, I think you are wrong. It's by showing up hetorsexism that the other things you mention will fall away.
OP: I understand your position, although you might want to think about opening up to coalition politics in your culture. There's
Of course, I have to take issue with your assumption that you should depend on non-gay creators for gay representation. Go watch some indie film, some Su Friedrich, some Todd Haynes, some New Queer Cinema if you want to support such representations. At least that way you know you'll be funding future representations, more sustained and central representations, and better nuanced representations.
I mean, at least it's not the homophobia of 300 and The Watchmen.
Call me crazy if you want, but I've always suspected that Garak (spelling?) from Deep Space Nine was supposed to be gay.
Like I said earlier in this thread, Roddenberry is dead, anything special about Star Trek died with him. It'd just another sci-fi franchise now, and no amount of nerdrage is going to change that, frankly.Why do you have to put this in such a douchey way, I wonder?
I just got back from the new Star Trek movie. While I saw no hint of a gay character in the film (sorry, OP!), the movie made a TON of effort to remain true to the spirit of the original series, and even lingered overlong in the credits to dedicate the film to Gene Roddenberry and Majel Barret Roddenberry.
So why the "frankly" and the "nerdrage"?
You're just coming off as unnecessarily hostile, in my view.
Chillax, brother.
Ironically, all this discussion about tolerance and seeing different types cast, reminds me of one of the last episodes of the original series, where they say that women couldn't be captains of star ships. Huh?! Talk about sexism.