If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Entertainment Weekly)   Star Trek producer regrets lack of gay characters. Fffffffffffascinating   (popwatch.ew.com) divider line 304
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3055 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 26 Jan 2011 at 2:42 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



304 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-01-26 07:38:44 PM

karasoth: But she is always the ultimate voice of authority and everyone agrees with her

even when her ideas are dumbshiat

thats what makes her a super-mary sue.


Dude, everyone followed her orders because she's the captain. Not everyone agreed with Janeway all the time, and her stubbornness and bullheadedness were sources of conflict throughout the series.

Now, I think there were problems with the writing in Voyager that sometimes loomed quite large, and I think there are valid criticisms about Janeway's character. There were definitely inconsistencies there, and if she was conceived as being extra-aggressive specifically to ease audiences into the idea of a female captain, that is problematic. But, for all of Voyager's flaws I have to say: I really enjoyed watching a Trek show where the captain was actually fallible and at times downright unlikeable. If you want to complain about characters being written as super-humans, what about the nearly-flawless human beings named Picard and Sisko?
 
2011-01-26 07:39:04 PM

karasoth: Sex for reproduction dominated human society until the industrial revolution. While men would have homosexual dalliances only a small number of those people would fall into what we consider a homosexual relationship today. But as the Modern industrial society rose up reproduction in MUCH of the world wasn't vital for survival. So people had the liberty to explore other types of sexuality.


If you actually learned that in some sort of structured, classroom enviorment, your teacher/professor should have their extremities slammed in a door repeatedly.

The notion that sex was solely for reproduction is a (Judeo) Christian notion that took root in the middle to late part of the Middle Ages.

The problem with trying to make any definitive statement about homosexual behavior between the end of the Roman era and the 19th century is impossible, because those who took part in such behavior intentionally didn't leave records because what they were doing would have gotten themselves and those they loved/slept with killed.

But homosexuality and homosexual behavior were a constant presence through that period, if you know where to look; there are plenty of oblique references to it in Renaissance art (the obsession with the story of Ganymede, for instance). Through the 17th and 19th centuries in Italy, arrests for homosexual sodomy were so common that the punishment became nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

And my my point still stands: human sexual hasn't changed at all. What's changed is our moral construct of what is and isn't acceptable.
 
2011-01-26 07:44:51 PM

Vanetia: karasoth: The first two seasons I think TNG didn't have a sense of what it was as a show and was still trying to emulate TOS

Yeah look at their second episode. A direct ripoff of a TOS episode.

Like I said, I'm glad they made it to season 3 to get good.


Looking at the Episode Guide

Justice: Of all the Episodes where they tried to rip off TOS this one worked the best. And it worked by playing to the strengths of TNG

The Battle: Because of the Ferengi Vs Picard Story that started here.

Elementary Dear Data: Yes its a Cliche Holodeck episode but its a very well DOne Cliched holodeck episode

A Matter of Honor: It sets up the Worf story and its the first real deep look at the Klingons.

The Measure of a Man: The Episode where Data has to defend his right of Sentience. While it was rehashed many times this one was VERY good

Pen Pals: An excellent episode and an excellent episode on the prime directive

Q Who: It Introduces the Borg and Delancie is just excellent in this. IMO the best Q episode

The Emissary: It also sets up the growth and development of Worf

Peak Performance: an excellent episode on Data's quest to be human
 
2011-01-26 07:47:40 PM

Dwight_Yeast: karasoth: Sex for reproduction dominated human society until the industrial revolution. While men would have homosexual dalliances only a small number of those people would fall into what we consider a homosexual relationship today. But as the Modern industrial society rose up reproduction in MUCH of the world wasn't vital for survival. So people had the liberty to explore other types of sexuality.

If you actually learned that in some sort of structured, classroom enviorment, your teacher/professor should have their extremities slammed in a door repeatedly.

The notion that sex was solely for reproduction is a (Judeo) Christian notion that took root in the middle to late part of the Middle Ages.

The problem with trying to make any definitive statement about homosexual behavior between the end of the Roman era and the 19th century is impossible, because those who took part in such behavior intentionally didn't leave records because what they were doing would have gotten themselves and those they loved/slept with killed.

But homosexuality and homosexual behavior were a constant presence through that period, if you know where to look; there are plenty of oblique references to it in Renaissance art (the obsession with the story of Ganymede, for instance). Through the 17th and 19th centuries in Italy, arrests for homosexual sodomy were so common that the punishment became nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

And my my point still stands: human sexual hasn't changed at all. What's changed is our moral construct of what is and isn't acceptable.


Sex was extremely unpleasent for women (except the most wealthy women) until the development of modern sanitation.

And Sex for reproduction: Look at children as a suvival method of labor in Africa, Asia, and South America. You should have paid more attention in class yourself.


Dude, everyone followed her orders because she's the captain. Not everyone agreed with Janeway all the time, and her stubbornness and bullheadedness were sources of conflict throughout the series.


Again: No one in the other series so blindly followed orders.
 
2011-01-26 07:47:46 PM

fusillade762: I'll just leave this here


It was a great day when they airlocked that dude.

So say we all.
 
2011-01-26 07:50:34 PM
Several of those episodes I didn't realize were 2nd season. Any Data episode gets an auto-thumbs up from me. (I am not shy about my love for him ♥)

The Measure of a Man is one that angered me a lot. Bruce Maddox can choke on his own dick.

I'd obviously recognize these shows as second season if I caught them on TV (the uniforms are a dead giveaway that they're not in season 3 yet), but thinking back on them I didn't realize they were.

I guess there were a few gems worth watching. Now I want to go home and do just that.

Pulaski can choke on her own dick, too, though.
 
2011-01-26 07:52:08 PM

Vanetia: Several of those episodes I didn't realize were 2nd season. Any Data episode gets an auto-thumbs up from me. (I am not shy about my love for him ♥)

The Measure of a Man is one that angered me a lot. Bruce Maddox can choke on his own dick.

I'd obviously recognize these shows as second season if I caught them on TV (the uniforms are a dead giveaway that they're not in season 3 yet), but thinking back on them I didn't realize they were.

I guess there were a few gems worth watching. Now I want to go home and do just that.

Pulaski can choke on her own dick, too, though.


I am glad to be of service
 
2011-01-26 07:55:29 PM

karasoth: Sex was extremely unpleasent for women (except the most wealthy women) until the development of modern sanitation.


Again, what idiot put that notion into your head? The idea that women couldn't/shouldn't enjoy sex is another chunk of Medieval Christian nonsense.

karasoth: And Sex for reproduction: Look at children as a suvival method of labor in Africa, Asia, and South America. You should have paid more attention in class yourself.


...and in the Classical (pre-Christian) world, sex was for fun.

Hell, Socrates says (more than once) that you should have kids for the good of the polis (city-state) but that sex was pleasurable and should be used as a reward in homosexual relationships (which were common in Athens) in educating the young.

And there's this little gem: we know little about pre-Roman Britain, but one of the things the Roman geographers tell us is that if you were a stranger who entered a British village, the chief would offer you one of his daughters to sleep with. If you turned him down, he'd offer you one of his sons. And if you didn't sleep with one of his kids, he'd be extremely put out, as it made him a bad host and you a bad guest.
 
2011-01-26 07:59:58 PM

Dwight_Yeast: karasoth: Sex was extremely unpleasent for women (except the most wealthy women) until the development of modern sanitation.

Again, what idiot put that notion into your head? The idea that women couldn't/shouldn't enjoy sex is another chunk of Medieval Christian nonsense.


Not couldn't they DIDN'T. Source documents from women in the period talking about how unpleasent sex was.

Research by people talking about the diseases that could be (and based on anthropological evidence) spread by sex in the days of poor sanitation.


karasoth: And Sex for reproduction: Look at children as a suvival method of labor in Africa, Asia, and South America. You should have paid more attention in class yourself.

...and in the Classical (pre-Christian) world, sex was for fun.

For people of means. For the peasents sex was to make farm hands. Basing your view on sex and sexuality on the conduct of the people with means is foolish.


Hell, Socrates says (more than once) that you should have kids for the good of the polis (city-state) but that sex was pleasurable and should be used as a reward in homosexual relationships (which were common in Athens) in educating the young.

and Socrates was not speaking as the voice of the common man or even the majority. He was speaking for the elite who had the capacity to enjoy sex


And there's this little gem: we know little about pre-Roman Britain, but one of the things the Roman geographers tell us is that if you were a stranger who entered a British village, the chief would offer you one of his daughters to sleep with. If you turned him down, he'd offer you one of his sons.



Which is nice and all but thats a matter of political realities not sexual realities. By bedding with the son and daughter of the chieftan you are bound to the larger community.

It had nothing to do with pleasure

And if you didn't sleep with one of his kids, he'd be extremely put out, as it made him a bad host and you a bad guest.

Again: This goes to the tradition of hospitality and not the desire for pleasure. There is a reason such pleasurable love was considered the ideal in the art and poetry of the time...because it didn't happen
 
2011-01-26 08:01:23 PM

Dwight_Yeast: If you actually learned that in some sort of structured, classroom enviorment, your teacher/professor should have their extremities slammed in a door repeatedly.


Dude, you totally don't get it. This guy has a BA in IS and a certificate in Asian Studies. He totally knows more about story structure than we do, and I'm guessing he also knows more about gender and sexuality than we do, too.

I mean, how much do you know about story archs? And didn't you know that because coal power plants and shiat we could finally have gay sex? I mean, it was totally a choice for me. I only decided to experiment with other types of sexuality because I realized I lived in an industrialized, modern society.

/strange how my initial reading of karasoth turned out to be true. *douchechill*
//Straight, white characters need not be justified in the room when shows are created. The story lines that are bound to be explored anyways (like babies and Scottish heritage) would necessitate such characters.
 
2011-01-26 08:02:43 PM

turbidum: Dwight_Yeast: If you actually learned that in some sort of structured, classroom enviorment, your teacher/professor should have their extremities slammed in a door repeatedly.

Dude, you totally don't get it. This guy has a BA in IS and a certificate in Asian Studies. He totally knows more about story structure than we do, and I'm guessing he also knows more about gender and sexuality than we do, too.

I mean, how much do you know about story archs? And didn't you know that because coal power plants and shiat we could finally have gay sex? I mean, it was totally a choice for me. I only decided to experiment with other types of sexuality because I realized I lived in an industrialized, modern society.

/strange how my initial reading of karasoth turned out to be true. *douchechill*
//Straight, white characters need not be justified in the room when shows are created. The story lines that are bound to be explored anyways (like babies and Scottish heritage) would necessitate such characters.


:-p and you don't know the rest of my C.V. Or the rest of my library

But you go ahead and be a fail troll who is butthurt
 
2011-01-26 08:04:07 PM

karasoth: Dwight_Yeast: karasoth: Also Homosexuality (as we know it today) has been a product of modernity. Pre-Modern sexuality was very different and who knows future human sexuality may be very different still.

Human sexuality hasn't changed in thousands of years. Modern notions of binary sexuality are an artifical construct, nothing more.

Yeah no.... I highly recommend you take some gender studies courses

Sex for reproduction dominated human society until the industrial revolution. While men would have homosexual dalliances only a small number of those people would fall into what we consider a homosexual relationship today. But as the Modern industrial society rose up reproduction in MUCH of the world wasn't vital for survival. So people had the liberty to explore other types of sexuality.


That's being a bit obtuse. Saying that "people had the liberty to explore other types of sexuality" ignores all the social and religious pressures against it. Before the 19th century, the VAST majority of homosexuality was considered a "weakness" anyone could fall into, much like greed, straight pussy lust, envy, sloth, etc.

It was only until Wilde's trial in the 1890's (if I'm remembering my history right) that homo/hetero became a binary choice. After that, Kinsey tried to bring modern folks to some sense of sanity vis a vis homosex being on a contiuum (aka prison sex, lockerroom sex, wide-stance sex for males,) so unless you're just emotionally retarded, you've never considered where you live on that line, sexualitywise.
 
2011-01-26 08:18:10 PM

karasoth: Not couldn't they DIDN'T. Source documents from women in the period talking about how unpleasent sex was.


Such as?

I should point of the works of Sappho of Lesbos here, but she wasn't the only woman who wrote erotic poetry; just the only one who has survived in quantity.

karasoth: For people of means. For the peasents sex was to make farm hands. Basing your view on sex and sexuality on the conduct of the people with means is foolish.


It's what we have to go on when it comes to the classical world.

But the notion that sex for pleasure was limited to the upper or educated class is simply nonsense.

Socrates was one of the poorest men in the city. But what's interesting about ancient Athens, and the reason why so much from the city survives is that almost everyone was literate. And everyone was exposed to what we would refer to as "high" culture; theater attendance was mandatory. And "low" (comedic) culture was just as popular and full of sex jokes.

karasoth: and Socrates was not speaking as the voice of the common man or even the majority. He was speaking for the elite who had the capacity to enjoy sex


Not even sure what that bit of nonsense is supposed to mean; so long as you have the equipment and its in working order, you can enjoy sex.

karasoth: Which is nice and all but thats a matter of political realities not sexual realities. By bedding with the son and daughter of the chieftan you are bound to the larger community.


That's a supposition on your part (and an amusing one). But it just as easily could have been that the pre-Roman Britains thought sex was pleasurable, and that offered it in the same way they offered food and wine.

karasoth: There is a reason such pleasurable love was considered the ideal in the art and poetry of the time


We have no idea what the art of poetry of pre-Roman Britain looked like as nothing really survives intact.

If you're talking about the art and poetry of the Classical world, then you're wrong: the focus there was on the sort of pure spiritual love that Socrates goes on and on about. Depictions of erotic loves are common in brothels, and we know from contemporary sources that the Romans who wrote erotic poetry were seen as slightly shocking and not for polite consumption, but that poets themselves were seen as trying to be provocative (in the way that Prince or Madonna used to be).

And for a third time, nothing you have said undermines my initial point: human sexuality hasn't changed at all; only our societal construct of it and our morals have.

turbidum: Dude, you totally don't get it. This guy has a BA in IS and a certificate in Asian Studies. He totally knows more about story structure than we do, and I'm guessing he also knows more about gender and sexuality than we do, too.


Yeah, that's how I'm starting to feel. Nevermind that I spent two years doing classics, have a degree in art history and used to read queer history and gender studies for fun; I'm obviously wrong here.

That, or I'm being trolled.
 
2011-01-26 08:18:33 PM

turbidum: Dwight_Yeast: If you actually learned that in some sort of structured, classroom enviorment, your teacher/professor should have their extremities slammed in a door repeatedly.

Dude, you totally don't get it. This guy has a BA in IS and a certificate in Asian Studies. He totally knows more about story structure than we do, and I'm guessing he also knows more about gender and sexuality than we do, too.

I mean, how much do you know about story archs? And didn't you know that because coal power plants and shiat we could finally have gay sex? I mean, it was totally a choice for me. I only decided to experiment with other types of sexuality because I realized I lived in an industrialized, modern society.

/strange how my initial reading of karasoth turned out to be true. *douchechill*
//Straight, white characters need not be justified in the room when shows are created. The story lines that are bound to be explored anyways (like babies and Scottish heritage) would necessitate such characters.


LOL, and he went to Manatee Community College before transferring to USF, which is what every single slacker in a three county radius with bad grades who would rather stay home and get wasted with their other slacker friends while living off mommy and daddy's money instead of actually putting in an effort to get an education does.
 
2011-01-26 08:19:17 PM

karasoth:
:-p and you don't know the rest of my C.V. Or the rest of my library

But you go ahead and be a fail troll who is butthurt


Gee, I'm not the one who touted my knowledge of both story structure and the history of sexuality and gender in this thread without substantiating either. If you have relative experience in either that goes beyond your claims of expertise, feel free to share. It's not as if you're talking out of your ass or anything, because nobody except for rich people enjoyed sex before the 1800s.

Or you can just go on calling me a fail troll, which you probably will since it's easier to do that than respond to people who call you out on your bullshiat.

/and, seriously, what the fark am I "butthurt" about?
 
2011-01-26 08:19:39 PM

Dwight_Yeast: There are a lot more primary characters on TOS than in True Blood or Torchwood and a hell of a lot more primary characters on TNG than on any of them.


Fair enough. But that series did start damn near a quarter century ago. Not defending it - wouldn't have minded a gay character at all but it's not like one-hour dramas were littered with serious gay characters in 1987.
 
2011-01-26 08:22:59 PM

JohnBigBootay: Dwight_Yeast: There are a lot more primary characters on TOS than in True Blood or Torchwood and a hell of a lot more primary characters on TNG than on any of them.

Fair enough. But that series did start damn near a quarter century ago. Not defending it - wouldn't have minded a gay character at all but it's not like one-hour dramas were littered with serious gay characters in 1987.


Oh wait - I was thinking TNG. There were most definitely NOT more primary characters in TOS than in true blood. Similar to true blood though. No one besides kirk, spock and mccoy got much screen time at all. Even the secondary characters got little serious development. Torchwood has 4 or 5. True blood has more character development that TOS and torchwood put together.
 
2011-01-26 08:31:08 PM

LeafyGreens: Before the 19th century, the VAST majority of homosexuality was considered a "weakness" anyone could fall into, much like greed, straight pussy lust, envy, sloth, etc.


...and because it was seen as sinful, it went on at the edges of society, and was intentionally left out of the historical record or deleted, so the only records which remain are when someone got caught. And going by that, so many guys were caught in post-Renaissance Italy that early 20th century scholars argued that sodomy convictions were purely political and didn't reflect a person's sexual interests (in regards to Caravaggio especially).

LeafyGreens: It was only until Wilde's trial in the 1890's (if I'm remembering my history right) that homo/hetero became a binary choice


That's what put it front and center, but the Victorian world have been moving in that direction for about fifty years when the Wilde trial happened.

LeafyGreens: After that, Kinsey tried to bring modern folks to some sense of sanity vis a vis homosex being on a contiuum (aka prison sex, lockerroom sex, wide-stance sex for males,)


And what Kinsey found (as he started early enough that he was able to interview people born in the 19th century) was that same-sex sexual relations were common and not seen as having any stigma attached to them (especially in rural communities) until the notion of Homosexuality came into the public realm in the early 20th century.

Hite also has all sorts of interesting accounts from men born in the 1890-1900's, and the range of homosexual activities that went on in the early years of the 20th century are surprising to read.

The only thing we don't have record of between the beginning of the Middle Ages and the 20th century are long-term relationships between same-sex couples, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Such relationships were obviously illegal and immoral, but that means they didn't happen; just that they were well-disguised. Remember that before 1900, you could easily home to another town and reinvent yourself as a new person with a new name.

There's no telling how many spinster "siblings" weren't actually related to each other.
 
2011-01-26 08:35:02 PM

JohnBigBootay: Fair enough. But that series did start damn near a quarter century ago. Not defending it - wouldn't have minded a gay character at all but it's not like one-hour dramas were littered with serious gay characters in 1987.


No, but the fact that Enterprise was put on the air in the last decade without a gay character is absurd.

Especially given how many queer Trekkies there are out there.

JohnBigBootay: Oh wait - I was thinking TNG. There were most definitely NOT more primary characters in TOS than in true blood. Similar to true blood though. No one besides kirk, spock and mccoy got much screen time at all.


Yeah, you probably have a point. I grew up on the original cast movies, so I always thing of everyone getting equal time.

I recently watched all of TOS for the first time, and it's kinda depressing how there really is almost no character development (Spock seems to get the bulk of it).
 
2011-01-26 08:36:06 PM

Dwight_Yeast: LeafyGreens: Before the 19th century, the VAST majority of homosexuality was considered a "weakness" anyone could fall into, much like greed, straight pussy lust, envy, sloth, etc.

...and because it was seen as sinful, it went on at the edges of society, and was intentionally left out of the historical record or deleted, so the only records which remain are when someone got caught. And going by that, so many guys were caught in post-Renaissance Italy that early 20th century scholars argued that sodomy convictions were purely political and didn't reflect a person's sexual interests (in regards to Caravaggio especially).

LeafyGreens: It was only until Wilde's trial in the 1890's (if I'm remembering my history right) that homo/hetero became a binary choice

That's what put it front and center, but the Victorian world have been moving in that direction for about fifty years when the Wilde trial happened.

LeafyGreens: After that, Kinsey tried to bring modern folks to some sense of sanity vis a vis homosex being on a contiuum (aka prison sex, lockerroom sex, wide-stance sex for males,)

And what Kinsey found (as he started early enough that he was able to interview people born in the 19th century) was that same-sex sexual relations were common and not seen as having any stigma attached to them (especially in rural communities) until the notion of Homosexuality came into the public realm in the early 20th century.

Hite also has all sorts of interesting accounts from men born in the 1890-1900's, and the range of homosexual activities that went on in the early years of the 20th century are surprising to read.

The only thing we don't have record of between the beginning of the Middle Ages and the 20th century are long-term relationships between same-sex couples, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Such relationships were obviously illegal and immoral, but that means they didn't happen; just that they were well-disguised. Remember that before 1900, you could easily home to another town and reinvent yourself as a new person with a new name.

There's no telling how many spinster "siblings" weren't actually related to each other.


I appreciate your intensity, but you're preaching to the choir on all this. I did my dissertation on the history of us gay folks.
 
2011-01-26 08:41:13 PM

LeafyGreens: I appreciate your intensity, but you're preaching to the choir on all this. I did my dissertation on the history of us gay folks.


It was really directed more at the guy who thinks no one had sex for pleasure until the Industrial Revolution than it was at you.
 
2011-01-26 08:44:10 PM

Dwight_Yeast: JohnBigBootay: Fair enough. But that series did start damn near a quarter century ago. Not defending it - wouldn't have minded a gay character at all but it's not like one-hour dramas were littered with serious gay characters in 1987.

No, but the fact that Enterprise was put on the air in the last decade without a gay character is absurd.

Especially given how many queer Trekkies there are out there.


Not to mention that given the widespread popularity of Trek slash fiction, there would be a lot of happy slashers. They'd probably have picked up at least as many viewers going that route as they did finding lame excuses to put T'Pol in minimal amounts of clothing.
 
2011-01-26 08:48:34 PM

Dwight_Yeast: LeafyGreens: I appreciate your intensity, but you're preaching to the choir on all this. I did my dissertation on the history of us gay folks.

It was really directed more at the guy who thinks no one had sex for pleasure until the Industrial Revolution than it was at you.


Well in that case I'll buy you a Manhattan if you're in Atlanta.
 
2011-01-26 08:51:49 PM

Bigdogdaddy: And gay characters would have added what to the show?


Well, Uhura certainly added something for blacks. She was one of the first black television heroes. I would guess that most people like to see people like themselves from time to time, especially when they're shat on in everyday life.
 
2011-01-26 08:56:19 PM

Dwight_Yeast: LeafyGreens: I appreciate your intensity, but you're preaching to the choir on all this. I did my dissertation on the history of us gay folks.

It was really directed more at the guy who thinks no one had sex for pleasure until the Industrial Revolution than it was at you.


The most hilarious thing about that is that even if you had Bob Jones literature textbooks (which I did), anybody who paid the slightest bit of attention in high school should know how ridiculously bawdy Shakespeare was, and if theater performed for the unwashed masses has that many sex jokes it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there was a lot of sexing going on and it wasn't just for procreation.
 
2011-01-26 09:21:02 PM

rynthetyn: anybody who paid the slightest bit of attention in high school should know how ridiculously bawdy Shakespeare was, and if theater performed for the unwashed masses has that many sex jokes it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there was a lot of sexing going on and it wasn't just for procreation.


Oh, but see, Shakespeare doesn't count, cause he was writing for the elite.

/groundling
 
2011-01-26 09:27:23 PM

Dwight_Yeast: rynthetyn: anybody who paid the slightest bit of attention in high school should know how ridiculously bawdy Shakespeare was, and if theater performed for the unwashed masses has that many sex jokes it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there was a lot of sexing going on and it wasn't just for procreation.

Oh, but see, Shakespeare doesn't count, cause he was writing for the elite.

/groundling


You better watch it, you're going to give certain people ideas. Funny how for some people it's easier to come up with convoluted explanations for why anything and everything isn't relevant to the subject at hand rather than admit that their view of the world is too narrow and simplistic.
 
2011-01-26 09:29:52 PM

Dwight_Yeast: JohnBigBootay: Fair enough. But that series did start damn near a quarter century ago. Not defending it - wouldn't have minded a gay character at all but it's not like one-hour dramas were littered with serious gay characters in 1987.

No, but the fact that Enterprise was put on the air in the last decade without a gay character is absurd.

Especially given how many queer Trekkies there are out there.



In reading the wiki about Enterprise, it turns out that Reed was originally supposed to be gay, but they made him straight for some reason. Also, the actor who played Reed has said (perhaps tongue in cheek) that he played Reed gay, so...

Also, that wiki article about Reed led to the "revelation" that (and take this with a grain of salt... it is from Wiki), Geordi was supposed to be gay, because Roddenberry wanted to put a gay character in the cast.
 
2011-01-26 09:35:00 PM
couldn't these characters just choose not to be gay though?
 
2011-01-26 10:04:05 PM

knoxvelour: couldn't these characters just choose not to be gay though?


It's the future, so sure, why not. I still want to see a sci-fi TV show where the characters can change gender at will.
 
2011-01-26 10:08:40 PM

knoxvelour: couldn't these characters just choose not to be gay though?


I think they can. Some frenchman here on fark was telling me the other day that homosexual behavior is learned behavior. He had quite a few interesting arguments.
 
2011-01-26 10:43:07 PM
Ohhhh myyyyyyyy
 
2011-01-26 10:43:15 PM

Fano: knoxvelour: couldn't these characters just choose not to be gay though?

I think they can. Some frenchman here on fark was telling me the other day that homosexual behavior is learned behavior. He had quite a few interesting arguments.


...was it a Frenchman with a suspiciously British accent?

And did he try to sell you sexy cakes?
 
2011-01-26 11:18:35 PM
www.joeydevilla.com
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
 
2011-01-26 11:48:57 PM

Fano: knoxvelour: couldn't these characters just choose not to be gay though?

I think they can. Some frenchman here on fark was telling me the other day that homosexual behavior is learned behavior. He had quite a few interesting arguments.


Yeah, he says the name's French, but I don't buy it. Accent sounds Belgian.
 
2011-01-27 12:49:40 AM

Vanetia:
Pulaski can choke on her own dick, too, though.



Pulaski > Crusher
 
2011-01-27 12:59:34 AM

Phantom_Spaceman: Vanetia:
Pulaski can choke on her own dick, too, though.


Pulaski > Crusher


Screw that. Pulaski can fall down an elevator shaft for all I care.
 
2011-01-27 01:33:28 AM
What a pickle, 287 comments and no mention of a certain photoshop thread with the theme "Where no man has gone before"?
I'm highly disappointed by this incident.
 
2011-01-27 02:01:14 AM

gas giant: What a pickle, 287 comments and no mention of a certain photoshop thread with the theme "Where no man has gone before"?
I'm highly disappointed by this incident.


Girl, been there, got the t-shirt.
 
2011-01-27 02:05:26 AM

turbidum: Girl, been there, got the t-shirt.


If I were a girl, I'd probably touch myself even more often.
 
2011-01-27 02:26:45 AM

gas giant: If I were a girl, I'd probably touch myself even more often.


Lady, I knew you were a guy. I was just being gay. You know how we be.

/fun fact: the fastest way to piss off many straight guys is to call them lady.
//not usually this gay, but feeling festive
 
2011-01-27 04:02:28 AM
fusillade762: Screw that. Pulaski can fall down an elevator shaft for all I care.

What...you did THERE...it has been...SEEN!
 
2011-01-27 06:30:16 AM

eddiesocket: This is not just "a TV show". It's a franchise that makes up five TV shows and twelve movies, and it's always been on the cutting edge of relevant social and political events. It's the first show to have a black character in a occupation that wasn't a maid or servant. And that was very important to black people at the time. This isn't just a banal oversight. It is very much so discrimination. If you read about the making of TNG, you'll learn that certain producers fought hard to make sure there wasn't so much as two male crewmembers holding hands in the background. The message was pretty clear. In fact, some religious people who watched the show speculated that homosexuality had been "cured" in the future, and that's why there shouldn't be any gays depicted. As far as we know, that's the truth, since the only gay characters ever out of literally thousands of characters existed in the Evil Mirror Universe


Put that way, it does make sense to have gay characters in Star Trek.
 
2011-01-27 06:34:30 AM

eddiesocket: As far as we know, that's the truth, since the only gay characters ever out of literally thousands of characters existed in the Evil Mirror Universe.


I just remembered something. There was that DS9 episode where Kazon Dax happened to meet another Dax with whom she once had a romantic relationship only that Dax was now in a female body, and there was a kiss scene, but that's the only one I can recall seeing in Star Trek and it was just done to be riding the coattails of the then recent girl-girl kiss scene in Roseanne
 
2011-01-27 11:06:13 AM

FirstNationalBastard: karasoth:
Well bringing Dax back then was just awful



No it wasn't!

Ezri was so cute! The cute little tinkertrill.


+1 for "cute" and "tinkertrill"

:)
 
2011-01-27 11:22:44 AM

fusillade762: Phantom_Spaceman:
Screw that. Pulaski can fall down an elevator turbolift shaft for all I care.


Fixed for the nerds and LA LAW fans out there...
 
2011-01-27 11:34:01 AM
i208.photobucket.com
 
2011-01-27 12:01:55 PM
re: Polishwonder74's post...

It was the mirror universe so maybe there, Sulu was straight. Well, by those rules, mirror universe Kirk would love the cock and we can't have that.

As an aside, wouldn't a "mirror universe" Star Trek movie be bad ass? All the female officers being lesbians in tank tops, Kirk blowing up planets for the hell of it, the Klingons are the good guys...wouldn't make a dime. But it'd be different.
 
2011-01-27 12:42:06 PM

turbidum: /fun fact: the fastest way to piss off many straight guys is to call them lady.
//not usually this gay, but feeling festive


I think this thread warrants it.
 
2011-01-27 01:29:45 PM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: eddiesocket: As far as we know, that's the truth, since the only gay characters ever out of literally thousands of characters existed in the Evil Mirror Universe.

I just remembered something. There was that DS9 episode where Kazon Dax happened to meet another Dax with whom she once had a romantic relationship only that Dax was now in a female body, and there was a kiss scene, but that's the only one I can recall seeing in Star Trek and it was just done to be riding the coattails of the then recent girl-girl kiss scene in Roseanne


Yes, and that was when Dax was a man and the other Trill was a female, so they were both remembering their former hetero love. Jadzia never expressed attraction to women, and Dax isn't really a gender. Clearly, the episode was a gay metaphor, but it was still just a metaphor and not a character.
 
Displayed 50 of 304 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report