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'

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this Jun. 13 2013, 3:33 pm

Would the character even need to be portrayed as married? That particular trait doesn't seem to have been approminent feature of most characters. In the future we should be able to imagine people having lots of different social arrangements. Look at the Denobulans and what's been insinuated in the books about Andorians. As humans are often portrayed as being a very flexible species and most of Star Trek's humanoid species are compatible it might be better to have a character that's just dating. Maybe even have them be as awkward as some of the straight characters have been in the past.

Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 13 2013, 3:40 pm

Well married (bonded, mated, whatever)  would probably be a more positive image in that it could show two people in a loving, family relationship with possible children.


 


As far as a lot of different social arrangements, I would say take it one step at a time.  You don't want to heap too many "unconventional relationship" ideas on at once.  Having a gay married couple would be difficult enough to sell, let alone one in some weird alien type relationship.  


It also would sort of be a disservice to the gay community.  The whole issue with gay marriage is that they want equality because they are just like us. To put a gay couple on a show but then have their realationship be aome sort of alien "other" type would reinforce the misconception that same sex marriage is not the same as straight marriage.

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this Jun. 13 2013, 3:51 pm

If the homosexuals are really to be like us that should take into account that not all straight people feel strongly about getting married. If the show were to tackle homosexual characters then there should be at least 2 living their own distinct lives. The characters may even vaguely dislike each other and not be friends.

Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 13 2013, 3:59 pm

I agree with you that everyone has different lifestyles, but to you need to start somewhere when making changes.  Remember that there is a tremendous amount of homophobia and misunderstanding in the perception of gay marriage and lifestyle in the world. We're talking mainstream TV here.  The first step would be to portray a happilly married couple as a family unit.  What you're talking about is probably too much at once for a first step in Star Trek. It's like trying to dance before you can crawl. 

Raubhautz

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Jun. 13 2013, 7:22 pm

I find it surprising that so many people find it surprising that they prefer not to be tainted by homosexuality.


 Star Trek: TOS, and Star Trek: NG definitely came out when the policy of, "Don't ask, don't tell." The later ones did come out when there was some break-through in this rainbow movement.


Now, though the creators of Star Trek did beleive in being edgy and to be sure that they included all races and both sexes, there is no indication that they felt ANYTHING for gays; that being said, I think it says everything we need to know about how the creators felt about homosexuality being a 'choice' or being 'hereditary'.


I agree with the original creators.

Raubhautz

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Jun. 13 2013, 7:40 pm

The odd thing in all of this is that there is such a commotion just to shove homosexuality down everyone's throats that it does take away from the natural feel of the show(s). As we all should remember, ST:TOS' episodes explored ideas, provoked thought, sometimes lessons were learned... That is why we watched this show. At the time, we as viewers did not care race/gender of the actors. Nobody made it such a big deal that we had to focus on and distract from the show. I do not think we could say the same about the gays: many would watch the show just to see what the homo characters were doing like in a soap opera, not watching the show for its meaning. To be honest, if they did just thow some gays in, without all this diatribe, I don't see that most of us would care lest they make it a focus of the show.


Further note, Is not Braga one of the producers on Enterprise and Voyager? Maybe even other shows... What nerve that guy has to criticize what was firmly in his own hands. Talk about a drama queen.

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Jun. 13 2013, 8:43 pm

Quote: Raubhautz @ Jun. 13 2013, 7:22 pm

>

>I find it surprising that so many people find it surprising that they prefer not to be tainted by homosexuality.

> Star Trek: TOS, and Star Trek: NG definitely came out when the policy of, "Don't ask, don't tell." The later ones did come out when there was some break-through in this rainbow movement.

>Now, though the creators of Star Trek did beleive in being edgy and to be sure that they included all races and both sexes, there is no indication that they felt ANYTHING for gays; that being said, I think it says everything we need to know about how the creators felt about homosexuality being a 'choice' or being 'hereditary'.

>I agree with the original creators.

>


Roddenberry said there should have been gay characters on his show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_Star_Trek


Kate Mulgrew, Patrick Stewart, Ronald D. Moore, and David Gerrold all said much the same thing. Like Braga, they all implied that someone higher up was preventing the subject from coming out. For a long time I've assumed it was Rick Berman, who had control of the franchise from Roddenberry's death until JJ Abrams and Co. took over, and was notorious for his conservative business decisions, e.g. firing the only good composer for writing music that was too emotional. Either that, or the studio/network didn't want to risk alienating their audience.


Raubhautz, do you feel like the producers of DS9 were trying to shove black people down our throats? Were the creators of Voyager trying to shove women down our throats? They very purposefully created leading roles for a black man and a woman in order to show that the future will not be run by white men. I would hope that a future series with a gay main character could also provoke thought and teach us lessons without being too "distracting" for you.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 6:07 am

I was going to mention Sam Adama! That's the perfect way to do it. A gay man doesn't have to act flamboyant, they can just have him act like everybody else, and when they show him going home, there's another man there living with him. No big deal


though I do hate to say it, I do think that if NOW there was a new series with a gay character some people would flip out over it, protest, boycott, and such. I mean look at all the controversy that cherios commercial caused because it showed an interracial couple

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 6:23 am

When Sam Adama "came out" so to speak, I believe it was the episode where he was having a conversation with young William Adama.  They did it so subtlely that I stopped and went "wait what?" and rewound the dvd.  Then I realized what the writes had done and wanted to send them cookies.  Sam Adama was one of the most brilliantly written "out" characters ever, simply because he never had to be out of the closet because on Caprica there was no closet to be in.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 10:14 am

There's a sad tendency by the LGBT community and its supporters to label anyone who disagrees with them a bigot.  They want acceptance for themselves, but cannot tolerate the intolerant.  It's a lot of hatred from a movement that claims to be about love.  There should be respect for all people, regardless of the position they hold on the issue.


I don't want to see homosexual characters in Star Trek, but I recognize that should there be another iteration of Trek on TV that's likely not to be the case.  Every year, there is more of a push in the media to forward the LGBT agenda because Hollywood is a big supporter of the cause.  Frankly, the subtle approach is the more effective one because it disarms people who would otherwise outright reject something.  Our society is rapidly growing more accustomed to having LGBT in every kind of lifestyle, and the entertainment mediums will reflect that.  At some point, the choice will fall to me whether or not to continue enjoying a particular kind of entertainment should it completely reject the value system I follow.  

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 11:12 am

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Jun. 14 2013, 10:14 am

>

>There's a sad tendency by the LGBT community and its supporters to label anyone who disagrees with them a bigot.  They want acceptance for themselves, but cannot tolerate the intolerant.  It's a lot of hatred from a movement that claims to be about love.  There should be respect for all people, regardless of the position they hold on the issue.

>I don't want to see homosexual characters in Star Trek, but I recognize that should there be another iteration of Trek on TV that's likely not to be the case.  Every year, there is more of a push in the media to forward the LGBT agenda because Hollywood is a big supporter of the cause.  Frankly, the subtle approach is the more effective one because it disarms people who would otherwise outright reject something.  Our society is rapidly growing more accustomed to having LGBT in every kind of lifestyle, and the entertainment mediums will reflect that.  At some point, the choice will fall to me whether or not to continue enjoying a particular kind of entertainment should it completely reject the value system I follow.  

>


There is no "agenda" by the LGBT community, unless of course you count seeking equality.


As far as labeling people bigots? What would you call a group of people that wants to deny another group of people rights? And personally I do consider homophobes bigots


And your phrase of "cannot tolerate the intolerate" just made me laugh out loud

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 11:14 am

Quote: bunkey @ Jun. 14 2013, 6:23 am

>

>When Sam Adama "came out" so to speak, I believe it was the episode where he was having a conversation with young William Adama.  They did it so subtlely that I stopped and went "wait what?" and rewound the dvd.  Then I realized what the writes had done and wanted to send them cookies.  Sam Adama was one of the most brilliantly written "out" characters ever, simply because he never had to be out of the closet because on Caprica there was no closet to be in.

>


I thought it was brilliant, and I applauded Caprica for how they handled it.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 12:31 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jun. 14 2013, 11:12 am

>

>There is no "agenda" by the LGBT community, unless of course you count seeking equality.

>As far as labeling people bigots? What would you call a group of people that wants to deny another group of people rights? And personally I do consider homophobes bigots

>And your phrase of "cannot tolerate the intolerate" just made me laugh out loud

>


You can laugh all you like, but it's the core of the problem.  You cannot preach tolerance while practicing intolerance, otherwise your words have no weight.  


The conflict really lies in the fact that the majority of western nations have societal institutions steeped in Christian doctrine of one sort or another.  Thus, there are governmental reflections of this in the way we treat our citizenry.  There are tax breaks for married couples, people with children, various inhertance laws and health care benefits, all based on an idea of family based in a religious set of values.  Although society has changed drastically over the years, the ways in which government benefits its citizens has changed much more slowly.  In my opinion, government has gone the wrong way in how it approaches these factors.  Instead of trying to create recognition for all by changing the definition of marriage, they should have removed marriage from the equation and returned it to the sole purview of religion.  This is especially poignant as even heterosexual couples are moving away from "traditional" norms of marriage, and in many cases, shunning the institution altogether.  


Really, marriage is one of the last remnants of religious influence on what is otherwise a secular government, and I think in the long run, it would behoove government to back out of supporting the institution altogether.  

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 12:50 pm

Leaving marriage in only the hands of the Monotheist churches is a backwards idea and an incorrect way of conducting those relationships in an advanced society. The idea of marriage did not originate with a monotheistic organization; monotheism intruded upon this institution in order to acquire additional social power.

Government should remove entirely religion from marriage. It essentially already has. You can have a priest lay his hands on two people's heads and mumble for 8 hours straight but they won't be legally married for real until they've fillled out their paperwork.

Putting marriage into the hands of a monotheist faction would not only be an offense to what we've come to think of as human rights and dignity but would also allow the monotheist faction to abuse anyone whether straight, gay, or of a rival religious faction of their rights.

By keeping marriage in the hands of the government we ensure that the legal rights that individuals who enter into this contract are better able to be evenly applied to all married people regardless of whether they belong to a monotheistic faction or not.

Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 14 2013, 12:53 pm

"Tolerance of intolerance."  Are you frakking kidding me?


So you're saying that not tolerating hatred, bigotry, oppression, biased violence and lack of equality is hurting the LGBT community? That they're supposed to TOLERATE hatred and people who want to rob them of their rights and sometimes physically assault them?


Jesus H Christ.  You're unbelieveable. 


 


So done with you.

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