Star Trek Beyond

[CessnaDriver]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

But that's not the same as having a fully actualized LGBT character in the series.

Sure, but as I still think, make it incidental not HEY LOOK WHAT WE DID!
Though now that I think of it Chekov was constantly given lines about Russian heritage and how they "invinteed" this and that first (often falsely).. blah blah,
but clearly more for comedy sake.
Though of course for Spock. it's VULCAN VULCAN VULCAN every two seconds with a whole episode based on his alien mating practices.
Bottomline I think there is a line between a classy way to do it or using Trek as a blunt social hammer.

 

[Bryancd]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Considering less then 4% of the US population identifies themselves as gay, it will likely be a long time coming before film studios or entertainment franchises make more then token efforts in this regard.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

But that's not the same as having a fully actualized LGBT character in the series.

Sure, but as I still think, make it incidental not HEY LOOK WHAT WE DID!
Though now that I think of it Chekov was constantly given lines about Russian heritage and how they "invinteed" this and that first (often falsely).. blah blah,
but clearly more for comedy sake.
Though of course for Spock. it's VULCAN VULCAN VULCAN every two seconds with a whole episode based on his alien mating practices.
Bottomline I think there is a line between a classy way to do it or using Trek as a blunt social hammer.

 

[Father]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

One could imagine gay characters have already been on all the shows and films as there were plenty of characters that their personal lives simply
were never portrayed.

Kind of my point. Why does sexuality/preference need to be any focal point at all? I could go on forever without ever knowing if Scott of Chekov is banging girls of guys. It's more than likely completely irrelevant to the story.

 

[Jeyl]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Considering less then 4% of the US population identifies themselves as gay, it will likely be a long time coming before film studios or entertainment franchises make more then token efforts in this regard.

The population of men and women are pretty much equal with the percentage of women being a tad bit higher here in the states, yet male dominated movies are still the norm in almost every medium. STID featured Carol Marcus with nothing to do while Uhura had her "Action Girl" moment that everyone thinks automatically vindicates her as a great character. I don't think population percentages has anything to do with studios making an effort to represent a particular group since the numbers do not add up.

 

[Jeyl]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Kind of my point. Why does sexuality/preference need to be any focal point at all? I could go on forever without ever knowing if Scott of Chekov is banging girls of guys. It's more than likely completely irrelevant to the story.

What do you mean "irrelevant" to the story? What story are you referring to? I watched Trek09 and STID and I don't think Spock and Uhura's relationship added anything to the films' stories at all. I don't think the writers included those character moments because they thought it was important to the "story", but because it gave our characters a sense of 'existence' that could be explored outside of the story. If everything was written solely to serve story, everything would be pretty bland. While I didn't like the Spock/Uhura relationship due to it's execution, I do understand what the intent was and I respect that.

Another problem with your "irrelevant to the story" argument is that it can apply to any number of elements that make up a movie from the style of the uniforms, the Enterprise design, a character's race and/or gender, sound design, and even whether Spock's blood is green or not. If you really want to respect and acknowledge diversity, you've got to look at the whole "relevant" issue both ways. No, it isn't important on what a character's race, gender or orientation is, but IT IS IMPORTANT that they can do the same things and have the same level of importance. If you're going to say that neither gay or straight is important, you've got to be willing to show both sides.

 

[Bryancd]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

The population of men and women are pretty much equal with the percentage of women being a tad bit higher here in the states, yet male dominated movies are still the norm in almost every medium.

We weren't discussing female representation in films, we were discussing the LBGT community.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you mean "irrelevant" to the story? What story are you referring to? I watched Trek09 and STID and I don't think Spock and Uhura's relationship added anything to the films' stories at all. I don't think the writers included those character moments because they thought it was important to the "story", but because it gave our characters a sense of 'existence' that could be explored outside of the story. If everything was written solely to serve story, everything would be pretty bland. While I didn't like the Spock/Uhura relationship due to it's execution, I do understand what the intent was and I respect that.

I enjoyed that aspect of the story very much.

 

[Jeyl]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

We weren't discussing female representation in films, we were discussing the LBGT community.

Take a moment to try and understand what my argument was really about. You started out with,

"Considering less then 4% of the US population identifies themselves as gay, it will likely be a long time coming before film studios or entertainment franchises make more then token efforts in this regard."

At face value that statement is easy to understand. 4% is a small number in any kind of factor, especially when it comes to population. But if a bigger percentage of a population is all that is needed in order to have more representation, why aren't we seeing more leading roles for women? They still make up half of the world's population yet we're still stuck with big movies starring your typical straight white male hero. Everyone seems so content and proud that their stories feature "strong female characters" and/or "gay/bisexual characters" but will never raise a finger when it comes to giving them a story where they are the focus instead of the minors.

 

[jlee562]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Well, look, since it's pride weekend here in SF.....

I know that y'all were probably not meaning to offend, but it's pretty disheartening, as a gay man myself, to read comments about relationships being "irrelevant" or that thr gay community only being 4% of the population.

To Bryan's point, the percentage of people who self identify as LGBT does not correlate with the "actual" percentage of folks who don't align fluidly with heterosexuality. No, I'm not saying there's a secret majority out there, but the 4% figure doesn't mean a whole lot. More to the point though, we already have feature films with prominent gay characters. Third point to make on this, gay men in particular are a lucrative demographic because they tend to have more disposable income.

To Father's point, Jeyl pretty much nailed it. The Uhura/Spock relationship is completely superfluous to the story in 09. In STID, it adds depth to their characters by giving them emotional weight.

For me, it comes down to the idea that if you're going to portray any interpersonal relationships, there's no reason not to include LGBT characters.

And Gene wanted it! It's something Trek has danced around for years, and something I know LGBT Trek fans would LOVE. It's easy to take for granted, when you're a heterosexual male, that basically the entire culture caters to your perspective. Imagine not being a heterosexual male and not ever seeing a fully actualitized LGBT character in media. And then reading that it's not worth it to include LGBT characters because it wouldn't be "relevant."

 

[Bryancd]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Oh, I'm sure it will happen, sooner then later, that a major film will feature a non-hetrosexual couple or main character. My point in regards to statistics are not to judge, this is the math a studio will do. That may be unfair or misrepresent their audience, but it is often the case. But having said that, I think the entertainment industry has become much more progressive and will continue, following along with a more progressive view of the LGBT community within the nation as a whole.

In general, my friends/clients who are gay actually feel things are moving in the right direction in regards to media, although often they are portrayed still as stereotypes. Of the women I associate with, to be honest, hardly any have ever complained about the male to female main character portrayals in film. So not all women seem to be on the same page on that subject.

 

[glunark]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Speaking as a straight man I would have no problem with a gay character in star trek, and really, I can't understand why another straight man would.

And as a life long star trek fan, I think its more likely Scotty would be the gay character, he never had much luck with women, whereas Checkov and Sulu were following the big titied klingon around like a pair of lost puppies, and Sulu even ended up with a daughter.

 

[Vivek]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

And Gene wanted it! It's something Trek has danced around for years, and something I know LGBT Trek fans would LOVE. It's easy to take for granted, when you're a heterosexual male, that basically the entire culture caters to your perspective. Imagine not being a heterosexual male and not ever seeing a fully actualitized LGBT character in media. And then reading that it's not worth it to include LGBT characters because it wouldn't be "relevant."

Your comment reminded me of the following quote.

"It's easy to fictionalize an issue when you're not aware of the many ways in which you are privileged by it.” - Kate Bornstein.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Speaking as a straight man I would have no problem with a gay character in star trek, and really, I can't understand why another straight man would.

And as a life long star trek fan, I think its more likely Scotty would be the gay character, he never had much luck with women, whereas Checkov and Sulu were following the big titied klingon around like a pair of lost puppies, and Sulu even ended up with a daughter.

Scotty was into that chick in the Apollo episode.

Anyways, I abhor changing characters history, though Abrams cast so much aside what does it matter for JJ Trek? LOL
It's funny because changing a characters history is OK if it's political correct change, if you took Blade for instance and made him white
like they took Nick Fury making him black, people would flip out.

Leave characters as created, if there was a big empty history on a character, fine fill it in, but flipping things that make a character what they are into something else isn't cool.
Abrams has broken a lot already though, so again, maybe it doesn't matter for JJ Trek. Nobody seemed to care about major canon violations that enjoys JJ Trek.

 

[glunark]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

And liking that chick got him killed (temporarily), which I believe would come under "not having a lot of luck with women"

 

[jlee562]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

http://collider.com/star-trek-3-script-roberto-orci/

When asked whether he’s feeling the pressure of taking the Star Trek director reins, Orci was quick to point out that he hasn’t officially signed on to that position just yet:

“Well, I don’t want to count my chickens before they hatch. The studio has yet to even read the script. I’m in the middle of writing it, with the talented team of [John D.] Payne and [Patrick] McKay. They are true Star Trek fans, as well. So, I can’t even think anything about the future until I give them a script and they greenlight it. Until that happens, everything else is just a rumor.”
​

 

[Vivek]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

There’s A Part For William Shatner In STAR TREK 3 | Badass Digest

 

[Riceball]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

There’s A Part For William Shatner In STAR TREK 3 | Badass Digest

Interesting, I liked the way that the original proposed cameo would have worked. I wonder how they're planning to do it now. I guess it's a good thing that Shatner looks pretty good for his age and if McCoy was shown to still be in Starfleet at a hundred and something then there's no reason why we can't have an 80+ year old Kirk still in uniform. Still, I really just wish that JJ would have just completely divorced his new Trek from the original and just called it a reboot, there would have been far fewer issues if they had, it wouldn't have necessarily made the movies any better but it would have resolved some plot holes derived from being an alternate time line.

 

[Bryancd]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Still, I really just wish that JJ would have just completely divorced his new Trek from the original and just called it a reboot, there would have been far fewer issues if they had, it wouldn't have necessarily made the movies any better but it would have resolved some plot holes derived from being an alternate time line.

I agree they should have just rebooted it but taking out all the Spock prime stuff would have made for better movies.

 

[0neiros]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Chris Pine Kirk looks at Old Shatner Kirk, Reaches over thumbs the Intercom -
"Kirk to McCoy"
"McCoy here."
"Bones, put me on a strict diet"
"Why Jim? You are in perfect physical condition."
"Apparently that's going to change, and I want to get started on it NOW!"
Old Kirk Looking Disgusted -
"See if I get you any good hotel deals."

If I were JJ and wanted to do a Trek movie for the 50th anniversary, I'd have a serious sit down with Harlan Ellison.

 

[seelsa73]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

I say if they want to give cameos to previous Trek principle actors, put them in as a grandparent to their character. Bing, bang, boom, you got a cameo that would make a bit of sense without making too big a deal out of it.