ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Brannon Braga calls lack of gay Star Trek characters 'a shame'

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 18 2013, 2:49 pm

You keep believing that.  Someday your archaic, prejudiced views and inabilty to accept all forms of humanity  will be viewed the same way we view people who thought that Black people were inferior to whites and who made interracial marriage illegal. As dinosaurs. Relics.  Progress will leave you in the dust.


And Star Trek will eventually have LGBT representation if there is another incarnation. Hell, the next movie may have it. And on that day I will rejoice at equality. While your cruel, ignorant beliefs rob you of the show you claim to love.


And Gene Roddenberry would probably be ashamed to have you as fans. 

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this Jun. 18 2013, 2:56 pm

We should all be ashamed to have such primitive discrimination and anti-science represented inside Star Trek's fandom. It's like knowing that there's a miserable worm writhing around inside the healthy flesh of an apple.

Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 18 2013, 3:10 pm

They have no idea how harmful their discrimination is. It is their intolerance, their belief that homosexality is wrong and unacceptable, their refusal to be supportive that drives young gay children to commit suicide. It is these same "holy" beliefs that cause families to throw their own children out of their homes or worse, send them to one of those hell on earth "pray the gay away" camps.   It is their upholding of this that allows and fuels violence against gay men and women and keeps them  from equal rights.


Everytime someone says that being gay is "wrong" or "against God" they are giving a free pass to those who would cause harm to the gay population. Everytime they say it is "wrong", a teenager in a small town with no one to turn to feels ashamed and alone. Everytime they say it is "wrong" a zealot father beats his own son for daring to love another.  


They don't realize that by saying something is "wrong" they are enabling all the terrible injustices gay men and women suffer.  Every single person who has ever says homosexuality is wrong or a sin is as responsible for violence against their fellow human beings as the people who attack them. Every time they say it's wrong they are guilty of encouraging inequality and oppression.


If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Admiral Jimmy

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 21

Report this Jun. 18 2013, 6:00 pm

If they put more gays in Star Trek they will surely lose millions of fans, and they might get some gay fans but not as many as they lost. Gay is and always will be TABOO.

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Jun. 18 2013, 6:47 pm

Quote: Admiral Jimmy @ Jun. 18 2013, 6:00 pm

>

>If they put more gays in Star Trek they will surely lose millions of fans, and they might get some gay fans but not as many as they lost. Gay is and always will be TABOO.

>


I could live with it, if they do a gay character and don't make a big deal of it. If they do it in a tasteful way, they may still lose some fans, but probably not as many as they would if they go and make the captain and first officer gay together or something. I could see either possibility happen sadly. But only time will tell I suppose. But hey if homosexuality is put into new Trek, it's likely it will be in the alternate timeline, thus classic Trek still remains untarnished. So it will all be okay. There are those of us who want it, and those who don't want it, and some who are neutral. It's likely that if they try it, it will most likely be an alien species, and not human. They somewhat did that with the TNG episode The Outcast, with that species that I think either only had 1 gender or no gender. Members of the species who selected a gender for themselves were prosecuted and forced to undergo some kind of medical treatment to "fix" them. That was a cool episode, and interesting for Riker's character as well. If it's done in some way like that, where it's the way another culture lives, or whatever, that would be acceptable to me. But I still don't care to see gays going at it, just for the sake of doing it. That's just me though.


Live Long and Prosper

Robsonnyboy

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Jun. 19 2013, 12:18 am

I believe that the best opportunity to add gay senarios or characters to STAR TREK was during the big update, upgrade or overhaul of the franchise in 2009. But here we are now in 2013 after the 2nd film and NOTHING!!!!


Gays are all around us today in our daily lives. You would think to see one, at least one, or more from time to time in THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE.


And this is coming from a strait man who just believes in ALL the concepts that STAR TREK stands for.


TODAY SEEMS LIKE A GOOD DAY TO FIGHT! MAYBE TOMORROW I WILL DIE! WE'LL SEE. HA HA HA HA HAAA!!!!! STAR TREK UNIVERSE 45th 1966-2011

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 19 2013, 4:58 am

Quote: Robsonnyboy @ Jun. 19 2013, 12:18 am

>I believe that the best opportunity to add gay senarios or characters to STAR TREK was during the big update, upgrade or overhaul of the franchise in 2009. But here we are now in 2013 after the 2nd film and NOTHING!!!!

>Gays are all around us today in our daily lives. You would think to see one, at least one, or more from time to time in THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE.

>And this is coming from a strait man who just believes in ALL the concepts that STAR TREK stands for


I was hoping they'd make NuSulu gay. That would be an awesome tribute to George Takei AND the fact that John Cho is an activist who supports same sex marriage and is against Prop 8. 


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jun. 19 2013, 5:36 am

Quote: Admiral Jimmy @ Jun. 18 2013, 6:00 pm

>

>If they put more gays in Star Trek they will surely lose millions of fans, and they might get some gay fans but not as many as they lost. Gay is and always will be TABOO.

>


Having a black woman be an officer on the bridge was taboo, having an Japanese man on the bridge was taboo, having an interracial kiss was taboo.


I don't believe that homosexuality is still a taboo subject, but Star Trek was built around taboos


And I doubt they would loose viewers. It's not that big of a deal anymore to show a gay character. Buffy had a lesbian couple and they didn't loose viewers, Friends had a lesbian couple and it was one of the most popular tv shows ever, Will and Grace centered around gay characters and they had strong ratings. There's a lot more examples I can give you where a gay character didn't result in loosing millions of fans.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jun. 19 2013, 5:41 am

Quote: bunkey @ Jun. 19 2013, 4:58 am

Quote: Robsonnyboy @ Jun. 19 2013, 12:18 am

>

>I believe that the best opportunity to add gay senarios or characters to STAR TREK was during the big update, upgrade or overhaul of the franchise in 2009. But here we are now in 2013 after the 2nd film and NOTHING!!!!

>Gays are all around us today in our daily lives. You would think to see one, at least one, or more from time to time in THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE.

>And this is coming from a strait man who just believes in ALL the concepts that STAR TREK stands for

I was hoping they'd make NuSulu gay. That would be an awesome tribute to George Takei AND the fact that John Cho is an activist who supports same sex marriage and is against Prop 8. 


that's a good point

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 19 2013, 6:01 am

Quote: willowtree @ Jun. 19 2013, 5:36 am

Quote: Admiral Jimmy @ Jun. 18 2013, 6:00 pm

>

>

>If they put more gays in Star Trek they will surely lose millions of fans, and they might get some gay fans but not as many as they lost. Gay is and always will be TABOO.

>

Having a black woman be an officer on the bridge was taboo, having an Japanese man on the bridge was taboo, having an interracial kiss was taboo.

I don't believe that homosexuality is still a taboo subject, but Star Trek was built around taboos

And I doubt they would loose viewers. It's not that big of a deal anymore to show a gay character. Buffy had a lesbian couple and they didn't loose viewers, Friends had a lesbian couple and it was one of the most popular tv shows ever, Will and Grace centered around gay characters and they had strong ratings. There's a lot more examples I can give you where a gay character didn't result in loosing millions of fans.


As a matter of fact, when shows have positive gay characters, like Buffy and Xena, for example, they GAIN viewers from the LGBT community. I've been to many Xena conventions and the LGBT community is one of the biggest supporters of Xena and a large portion of attendees.  Even Mariska Hartigay's Law and Order character is a lesbian icon, while neither the character or the actress are lesbian.  


When the LGBT community "adopts" a show or character they become a powerful driving force.  If a new Star Trek featured a gay senior officer, there would be thousands of new fans tuning in that never watched Star Trek before.  You'd have a whole influx of gay Trekkies. (Which I would further drive away homophobes away from conventions! YAY!)


Many people feared that they would lose viewers when Kirk kissed Uhura. They famously did not receive ONE piece of hate mail


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

Admiral Jimmy

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 21

Report this Jun. 19 2013, 7:59 am

They will gain a few LGBT viewers but they will lose more fans then they got from LGBT. And Sulu and Star Trek becoming gay is just what Gene Roddenberry did not want, it would dishonor him to make Star Trek became gay.


Star Trek is a TV show not only about SciFi and Space, its also about doing the right thing. The newest Star Trek was fine. 

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jun. 19 2013, 8:25 am

Quote: Admiral Jimmy @ Jun. 19 2013, 7:59 am

>

>They will gain a few LGBT viewers but they will lose more fans then they got from LGBT. And Sulu and Star Trek becoming gay is just what Gene Roddenberry did not want, it would dishonor him to make Star Trek became gay.

>Star Trek is a TV show not only about SciFi and Space, its also about doing the right thing. The newest Star Trek was fine. 

>


With so many examples of shows GAINING not loosing viewership why do you think Trek would loose viewers. Trek fans (with few exceptions as we see here) are intelligent openminded people. In this day and age homosexuality is not controvercial or taboo as it once was. In the mid 90s yeah it was a big deal. When Ellen came out on her show it was a big deal. But now, in 2013, people aren't shocked or awed by a gay character, it's an every day occurence. Look at how may current shows feature gay characters and they are incredibly popular shows.


why do you think that Gene wouldn't want a gay character? Why do you think you know what he would want? Several people here have posted quotes from him tha show that he was NOT against homosexuality. Are you simply ignoring posts that prove you wrong?


I understand that YOU would stop watching, but it baffles me that you are so arrogant to assume that everyone else would act just like you

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 19 2013, 9:01 am

Quote: Admiral Jimmy @ Jun. 19 2013, 7:59 am

>They will gain a few LGBT viewers but they will lose more fans then they got from LGBT. And Sulu and Star Trek becoming gay is just what Gene Roddenberry did not want, it would dishonor him to make Star Trek became gay.

>Star Trek is a TV show not only about SciFi and Space, its also about doing the right thing. The newest Star Trek was fine.


Do you have any clue about demographics and ratings? Nope. You just assume that bigoted, homophobic religious idiots out number every one.  You clearly have no concept of how television ratings work and the sheer number of LGBT viewers. Their numbers are far greater than anything that your homophoboc brain would be comfortable with.


You're so delightfully hypocritical and ignorant. You're really pulling these statements out of your ass. You claim Sulu becoming gay would "dishonor" Roddenberry when Roddenberry himself wanted to add gay characters as far back as the 1960s. You are very wrong in your belief that Gene Roddenberry didn't want a gay character. Gene Roddenberry wanted very much to add a gay character, but he was always fighting against network executives, even on TNG.  He simply became too ill to continue the fight.


A quote from a George Takei interview:


"You know, we’d dealt with the Vietnam War. We’d dealt with the civil rights movement. We’d dealt with a lot of issues of our times. And I asked him, “How do you feel about gay rights?” He said, “This is an important issue and we want to deal with it.” However, this was while we were on TV. He said, “Our ratings are low and I need to keep the show on the air. All I need is another firestorm and this show will be canceled, and I won’t be able to make those statements that I’ve been making with the show.” He said, “The times will change as we move along, but at this point, I can’t do that.” So again, it was the politic compromise, like what poor Bill Clinton had to make. - George Takei in an interview with Salon"


Here's another interview with David Gerrold:


 In fall 1986, when Paramount announced it was creating a new “Trek” series, “The Next Generation,” the now middle-aged Gerrold was brought on-board to help create it. Before Gerrold had done much more than move into his Los Angeles office, he traveled to Boston for the 20th anniversary convention of the original show. Following a speech to a large crowd of Trekkers, Gene Roddenberry, the creator of “Star Trek,” took a question about “The Next Generation” from a fan named Franklin Hummel, a Boston Public Library employee and director of a gay science fiction group called the Gaylaxians. Gerrold was in the crowd, taking notes.


“Franklin asked whether there would be a gay character on the new show. He made the point that [the original] ‘Star Trek’ had been a leader in bringing black and Asian characters to television, that this was the next step,” Gerrold told me in May. “Gene agreed. He said, ‘Sooner or later, we’ll have to address the issue. We should probably have a gay character.’”


Back in Los Angeles, Gerrold says, Roddenberry mentioned “the gay issue” in a meeting about the direction of the new series. Apparently some members of the staff were surprised. “Next Generation” producer “Robert Justman made a remark about ‘ensign tutti-frutti,’” says Gerrold. “But Gene very calmly explained that it was time.”


 


He did in fact have plans to include LGBT characters but sadly passed away before it could happen:


One anecdote Arnold told me about the filming of a third-season “Next Generation” episode, “The Offspring,” stands out. In that story, the android character Data decides to build an android daughter, whom he calls Lal. Data educates her as best he can, but Lal becomes confused when she sees two people kissing. In a typically “Star Trek-ky” “What is this ‘love’ you speak of?” scene that takes place in the Enterprise D’s lounge, Whoopi Goldberg, playing Guinan, teaches Lal about the birds and the bees.


“According to the script, Guinan was supposed to start telling Lal, ‘When a man and a woman are in love …’ and in the background, there would be men and women sitting at tables, holding hands,” Arnold says. “But Whoopi refused to say that. She said, ‘This show is beyond that. It should be “When two people are in love.”‘ And so it was decided on set that one of the tables in the background should have two men holding hands — or two women, or whatever. But someone ran to a phone and made a call to the production office and that was nixed. [Producer] David Livingston came down and made sure that didn’t happen.”


That was back in 1990. The next year, Roddenberry responded to a Gaylaxian-led letter-writing campaign by promising to bring gays into the “Star Trek” universe. “In the fifth season of ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation,’ viewers will see more of shipboard life in some episodes, which will, among other things, include gay crew members in day-to-day circumstances,” Roddenberry wrote in a statement to the Advocate, a Los Angeles gay magazine.


 


 


A few months later Roddenberry suffered a fatal pulmonary embolism and heart attack. And many gay Trekkers took his statement to the Advocate as a promise that Rick Berman, Roddenberry’s successor, was dutybound to honor. Berman, however, didn’t see things that way.


Before he joined the “Next Generation” team in 1987, Berman had spent five years producing a children’s show called “The Big Blue Marble.” At Paramount, he oversaw production of shows like “Family Ties,” “Webster” and “Cheers.” Unlike the creator of “Star Trek,” Berman had little abstract fascination with the destiny of human civilization. No one I spoke with accuses him of homophobia. But he certainly wasn’t interested in putting “ensign tutti-frutti” on a show that, in some markets, was broadcast in the after-school time slot.


 


The last three seasons of “The Next Generation” came and went without gayness. Ditto for seven years of “Deep Space Nine” and “Voyager,” both of which Berman helped create and produce. This fall, a fifth “Star Trek” franchise, “Enterprise,” will air. Berman will be head honcho for that project, too.


 


 


“Gene talked to me about the issue of how gay people could be depicted,” says Over. “And the consensus between us was that we should show people in background situations — two people walking down a hallway holding hands, for example. You would do it without dialogue, without making a big deal about it. In the 23rd century, that would be accepted as normal.


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jun. 19 2013, 9:11 am

I definately understand why there were no homosexual characters in TOS, at the time Star Trek was already pushing so many boundaries with casting and plots that this issue would probably have been one too many and would have gotten them off the air. Even early TNG was probably still too early to include such a character. But DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise would have been a fine time to have a gay character


 


ok serious question to the anti gay people. Are you guys opposed to any gay character whatsoever? What if it was a guest chararacter that recurred 4 or 5 times like Vorik on Voyager

corndogs

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 308

Report this Jun. 19 2013, 11:07 am

I thought I had read about Lt. Reed "coming out" if there was going to be a Season 5 of Enterprise??

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum