Bowing out - Star Trek

[Starcrystal]

There was gay stuff in the 80s and 90s with NG.. and how about Rikers little affair with the transgender, non gender alien..who you did not know was a guy or a girl?
Another problem is inter species mating which would go against scripture...how about the Ferengi 'toads' always hitting on the Betazoids, though Deanna Trois Mom put that in its place...

Star trek is a cool show as far as the technology, strange new worlds, awesome visuals of interstellar space, and battles between star nations..though even back in the 60s and 70s i knew Klingons and Romulans could be friends, not enemies, and lo and behold by the 80s and 90s it was true.
the real break with the Romulans as friends came in Nemesis, though it was predicted in the OS when Kirk and a Romulan battled it out and the Romulan said under other circumstances we could be friends, and Kirk agreed..that Romulan captain actually launched an ancient Romulan nuclear rocket at the Enterprise...actually that episode made me cry.. at least Picard and Commander Donatra get it right..after the battle and Donatras ship dead in the water, Picard says something like "no need for security, just open the doors.."
I am sure that Picard and Donatra enjoyed that Romulan ale at last (probably on Enterprize as they always seemed to have a stash somewhere)..but they didn't write the rest of the story..I always figured Picard and Donatra would get married and total peace between Romulans and the Federation.
that is a good story..I do not like the gay stuff either and have not even seen this most recent stuff but was aware of strange relationships in Star trek long ago, subtly promoting an agenda..
I would say go Picard and Donatra, one man, one woman...

 

[Starcrystal]

Yes, we all get that it is all fiction. That's a given. No one here is claiming that it is reality. However, we know certain things in this fictional world, one of which being that at the current point in this fictional world Sulu's Enterprise has not yet gone warp 12.

Hi, I know we totally agree about WW2, but here i must disagree. I claim it is reality..loosely based off the ancient Anunnaki wars, war in heaven, fall of Lucifer, proven by artifacts on Mars, UFOs, and other strange celestial phenomenon that was predicted in scripture.

The TV shows, books, and movies make it a HUMAN endeavor in the future, but this kind of stuff actually happened in the past. Battlestar Galactica is another one, as is Star Wars..even Star Wars says it was in the past...

The fallen ones came to earth and took wives and giants were born, Genesis 6....all this stuff already happened, they just loosely based a bunch of movies and TV shows on ancient history..

And I took this picture and had it analyzed..looks like Enterprise just sailed peacefully over Alaska in 2003. And USS Vengeance did not crash into San Francisco ...
That is a Galaxy class starship..not photoshopped, but a real photo I and Lisa took in Alaska... and have a few other UFO photos too, but this is not a UFO in my book..

original:

Enlargements:

Galaxy class starship..Hello Captain Picard!

 

[FreeinChrist]

I am well aware that Star Trek has been a forum to explore current social issues, not hating people because they are of a different race is a relevant AND Christian supported social issue. Many felt interracial marriage was a sin, but that was not supported by scripture and I never once heard a preacher claim it to be a sin. Homosexuality is not like those issues, it is incompatible with Christianity and being a "current social issue" I feared they would make it a theme. I guess I always knew it was coming.

We are not of this world. That becomes more clear to me every day.

I used hear that interracial marriage was a sin though it was a long time ago. But then some in that old church said other horrible things about blacks despite my parents disagreement with those statements.


Star Trek has always tried to comment a bit on social issues. Just having a black woman on the bridge was unheard of in the early 60s. In the pilot, the woman who later played Nurse Chapel was #1 - ony second to the captain. That was daring in those days.
And remember the episode where the two guys hated each other because one was black on the right side and white on the left and the other guy was the opposite? Some was subtle and some was more obvious.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

 

[MoonlessNight]

I note that not one person supporting the change has discussed whether the change makes sense for Sulu's character. To his immense credit, this was the only thing that George Takei was concerned about when he was asked on the issue and he said that it didn't really make sense. From his other actions I would be amazed if he objected to gay characters in Star Trek generally, but he didn't think that there was a need to change established characters in order to do this.

It's almost as if the people supporting this change don't care about the story or characters at all, or at the very least only care about them secondarily to how "diverse" the story is or how much "social impact" it can make. (That's actually the charitable interpretation. The less charitable one is that the people demanding the change can't understand the concept of George Takei being gay but the character he played being straight).

But if you put story secondary to anything what you will end up with be boring at best, actively insulting at worst. And the thing is, that undermines its ability to make a social impact. If the movie is bland and uninteresting, no one will want to see it no matter how many times you tell them that it is socially progressive. You might feel better about yourself for doing so, like you might feel when you are explaining to children how important it is for them to eat their broccoli no matter how bad they think it tastes, but you won't make an impact on society.

 

[Archivist]

I note that not one person supporting the change has discussed whether the change makes sense for Sulu's character. To his immense credit, this was the only thing that George Takei was concerned about when he was asked on the issue and he said that it didn't really make sense. From his other actions I would be amazed if he objected to gay characters in Star Trek generally, but he didn't think that there was a need to change established characters in order to do this.

It's almost as if the people supporting this change don't care about the story or characters at all, or at the very least only care about them secondarily to how "diverse" the story is or how much "social impact" it can make. (That's actually the charitable interpretation. The less charitable one is that the people demanding the change can't understand the concept of George Takei being gay but the character he played being straight).

But if you put story secondary to anything what you will end up with be boring at best, actively insulting at worst. And the thing is, that undermines its ability to make a social impact. If the movie is bland and uninteresting, no one will want to see it no matter how many times you tell them that it is socially progressive. You might feel better about yourself for doing so, like you might feel when you are explaining to children how important it is for them to eat their broccoli no matter how bad they think it tastes, but you won't make an impact on society.

I'm not sure that they are trying to make an impact on society by having Sulu be gay, really just reflecting society.

An inter-racial kiss and a female executive officer in the 1960s--now that was trying to make an impact on society.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I'm not sure that they are trying to make an impact on society by having Sulu be gay, really just reflecting society.

An inter-racial kiss and a female executive officer in the 1960s--now that was trying to make an impact on society.

And once again, no concern about whether it makes sense for the character. Stories just need to have gay people now, and that's something that should be determined before writing anything else. Gotta check off those quota checkboxes to accurately reflect society after all.

 

[Archivist]

And once again, no concern about whether it makes sense for the character. Stories just need to have gay people now, and that's something that should be determined before writing anything else. Gotta check off those quota checkboxes to accurately reflect society after all.

And the problem with having a gay character is...???

We have gay officers in the US military now, why wouldn't Star Fleet have them in the future?

Just to be clear, I am not promoting homosexuality. That would be a violation of CF rules. I am simply asking why the crew of the Enterprise shouln't reflect society.

BTW, when you talk about quotas, you do realize that Chekov was a later addition to Star Trek, and his inclusion may have been in response to a Pravda article--there were no Russians then seen on the Enterprise.

 

[MoonlessNight]

And the problem with having a gay character is...???

We have gay officers in the US military now, why wouldn't Star Fleet have them in the future?

Just to be clear, I am not promoting homosexuality. That would be a violation of CF rules. I am simply asking why the crew of the Enterprise shouln't reflect society.

BTW, when you talk about quotas, you do realize that Chekov was a later addition to Star Trek, and his inclusion may have been in response to a Pravda article--there were no Russians then seen on the Enterprise.

This is about Sulu, not about gay characters generally. I even mentioned the possibility of having other gay characters. I don't throw out fiction merely because it contains gay characters, since as you have noted people are gay in reality as well.

But you have not stated why it makes sense for Sulu in particular to be gay, indeed you don't even seem to comprehend that you would need to state this.

Since you don't seem to think that it is important to consider whether something makes sense for a character before declaring the character to be that, then you should agree that it is important for the next movie to make Kirk convert to Islam. After all, there are more and more Muslims in Western society now and there is no prominent Muslim character in Star Trek, so it only makes sense for Kirk to be a Muslim. By your own reasoning the only reason that anyone would object to this is if that person was a hateful bigoted Islamophobe, and since you aren't one of those I'm sure that you're on board with this idea with no reservations whatsoever. If you want we could organize a petition to get JJ Abrams to enact this much needed change.

 

[Circle Christ]

I've been a fan of Star trek, the wagon train to the stars all of my life. It began the year I was born and I've seen everything they have done. I knew sooner or later they would shove the gay agenda down my throat and I guess now is the time. The new Sulu will have a husband. The original Actor George Takei who is gay himself tried to talk them out of it. It's extremely low hanging fruit to choose Sulu just because George was gay but that's Hollywood.

I'll have to bow out. I would say I wish them luck but truthfully I hope their movie is a financial disaster. I'll have to bow out of most movies and television as time goes on but I'm not worried about that. I'll be better off. It's kind of sad seeing something that used to just be about fun turned into political crap.

There was said to be a push to make the Sesame street characters known as Bert and Ernie into a gay couple in the new franchise productions. Small and large screens. I think there was a huge push back as I've not hear this has been done as yet.

It's business. Hollywood isn't here to uphold moral character in their Hollywood production characters. They're there to make money.
That's what it is really all about if you think about the articles that have appeared over the years since this all started. Money. The homosexual demographic is more likely to spend more money supporting pro-gay themed anything, than when their identity isn't represented or supported in something. Movies are business just like everything else that's conceding on every possible level.

But is this news? Or did the Bible warn us? And as people of Christ what is there to fear? We know what it is to live in peace in the love and promise of God. And anyone is welcome to get on our bandwagon, and join our pride parade, not the sinful type just to cut off the remarks that would come after saying that, and live for Christ.


Because living for self only lasts a lifetime. Living with and for God is eternal. Can we really be mad when others make the wrong choice?


All is as God wills.
Even Star Trek's change of programming.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

It's business. Hollywood isn't here to uphold moral character in their Hollywood production characters. They're there to make money.

They don't have to promote homosexuality to make money.

The homosexual demographic is more likely to spend more money supporting pro-gay themed anything, than when their identity isn't represented or supported in something.

That demographic is a fairly small minority. No, there's a social agenda. It isn't just about the money.

 

[Circle Christ]

Enforced conformity with gender-role stereotypes?

Clearly no one can force conformity in people who prefer to reject their body or natural law. That's silly. Rather, the movement that is afoot today is acting in force to mandate conformity with cross gender identity caused by what the APA identifies as a mental illness that is untreated and instead is sustained and promoted in the patient.

Meanwhile, the natural God ordained man woman reproductive process to further the species remains in place.

Contrary to the anti-God created gender roles proponents preference.

 

[Circle Christ]

They don't have to promote homosexuality to make money.

No, they do not. But as you can read they apparently choose to.

That demographic is a fairly small minority. No, there's a social agenda. It isn't just about the money.

Of course. The Trans and Homosexual communities are minorities. Maybe even qualified to be called super minorities. Hollywood is about the money. While entertainment has always been an audo-visual social engineering experiment. Not just now with the Trans-Homo subject matters making the news in the industry.
Always.
Remember when a black man had a leading role in a movie? People were upset. Remember when women started wearing bikini's in films? People were upset. When women were portrayed on small screen as a divorcee marrying a new husband and blending their family. People were upset. What about the Cleavers? The stay at home mom and the first marriage? How dare you!

Society follows where they're led since the advent of media.
It isn't a moral issue for the programmers. It's a societal evolution program mapped out generations into the future. And those who do the writing don't think in spans of days, weeks, months or years. They think in terms of generations, decades, and centuries.

That's why so many Christians I know don't have a TV save to watch DVD's they've bought or rent that are wholesome and educational.
And the new smart TV's watch and listen to you. Isn't that a blip? You're not just watching TV now. Certain models watch back.

National security. Uh, I mean, ahem, marketing strategy.

We have seen the future. And it doesn't give a damn about Jesus.
Anonymous​

 

[Starcrystal]

I used hear that interracial marriage was a sin though it was a long time ago. But then some in that old church said other horrible things about blacks despite my parents disagreement with those statements.


Star Trek has always tried to comment a bit on social issues. Just having a black woman on the bridge was unheard of in the early 60s. In the pilot, the woman who later played Nurse Chapel was #1 - ony second to the captain. That was daring in those days.
And remember the episode where the two guys hated each other because one was black on the right side and white on the left and the other guy was the opposite? Some was subtle and some was more obvious.

Nurse Chapel (Christine Barret) was the wife of Gene Roddenberry..
but

Aw

 

[Starcrystal]

Remember when a black man had a leading role in a movie? People were upset. Remember when women started wearing bikini's in films? People were upset. When women were portrayed on small screen as a divorcee marrying a new husband and blending their family. People were upset. What about the Cleavers? The stay at home mom and the first marriage? How dare you!

Society follows where they're led since the advent of media.
It isn't a moral issue for the programmers. It's a societal evolution program mapped out generations into the future. And those who do the writing don't think in spans of days, weeks, months or years. They think in terms of generations, decades, and centuries.

That's why so many Christians I know don't have a TV save to watch DVD's they've bought or rent that are wholesome and educational.
And the new smart TV's watch and listen to you. Isn't that a blip? You're not just watching TV now. Certain models watch back.

National security. Uh, I mean, ahem, marketing strategy.

We have seen the future. And it doesn't give a damn about Jesus.
Anonymous​

Yup..how true, and yes I remember all that.
Remember Gilligans Island in the 60s? Mary Ann was forbidden to show her belly button though a few times it pops up..Innocent days, and this show was actually quite controversial back then...

"The real battle on Gilligan's Island was fought in the hearts and loins of viewers and concerned Ginger and Mary Ann. But an equally vicious war waged behind the scenes over the amount of skin the pair could show. In the 1960s, the belly button was one of the prime battlegrounds of decency, and so despite Ginger's cleavage-baring outfits, she and Mary Ann were barred from showing their navels. Promo shots exist with navels bared, but on-air, there were a lot of high-waisted shorts and one-piece bathing suits on that extended three-hour tour."
http://www.nerve.com/entertainment/great-moments-in-televised-nudity

Woops..I used to have the DVD and in that scene her belly button is shown more then they cut to another scene but never deleted it...

That was rather innocent and even then TV was promoting big breasts, while trying to censor navels..nowadays its more like anything goes..I do not have TV..I want no part of it.

The past few years even if you rent a movie and its plot has nothing to do with immorality they seem to always show some bar scene with 2 girls kissing or 2 guys kissing...like the media has to put that in there. It is gross and disgusting..
I stay away from it now..it has become too sick

 

[Archivist]

This is about Sulu, not about gay characters generally. I even mentioned the possibility of having other gay characters. I don't throw out fiction merely because it contains gay characters, since as you have noted people are gay in reality as well.

Ok.

But you have not stated why it makes sense for Sulu in particular to be gay, indeed you don't even seem to comprehend that you would need to state this.

I never said that there was any reason to make "Sulu in particular to be gay." Please don't put words in my mouth.

We do know that there are several characters who would not be gay. Spock, because he is interested in Uhura. Uhura, because she is interested in Spock. McCoy, because he was married to a woman (although I guess you could explain that he was in the closet, but that would probably take more time than get want to put into this). Finally, Kirk because he is into pretty much every attractive woman out there.

That leaves Scotty, Chekov and Sulu.

Since you don't seem to think that it is important to consider whether something makes sense for a character before declaring the character to be that, then you should agree that it is important for the next movie to make Kirk convert to Islam. After all, there are more and more Muslims in Western society now and there is no prominent Muslim character in Star Trek, so it only makes sense for Kirk to be a Muslim. By your own reasoning the only reason that anyone would object to this is if that person was a hateful bigoted Islamophobe, and since you aren't one of those I'm sure that you're on board with this idea with no reservations whatsoever. If you want we could organize a petition to get JJ Abrams to enact this much needed change.

This just makes no sense. we know the sexual orientation of several Star Trek characters (as I have already shown) but we don't know the religious views of any if the main TOS charactes.

 

[Starcrystal]

Ok.





That leaves Scotty, Chekov and Sulu.

Scotty was a drunk but very intelligent..he also was known to pursue relationships with younger women in Star trek at times.
(I'm 3/4 Scottish, is this Scottish thing? LOL, my last 2 wives were 11 years younger than me). In real life James Doohan (Scotty) was married 3 times, to women.

Chekov is Russian and Russian don't play gay very much at all..Chekov was involved with a girl named Irina in Star fleet acadamy. Chekov also got involved somewhat with an alien woman Tamoon.
In real life the actor Walter Koenig is married and has 2 children..


I shall not discuss Sulu

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Once they did the reboot, all the old characters were altered anyway. I liked the model of introducing new crews, ships and bases, not creating an alternative universe and throwing out the world so painstakingly built over five/six tv series, movies and novels. Since they have done so, why does it matter if new/alternative Sulu is gay?

 

[Starcrystal]

the green Orion slave girls are rather a strange phenomenon..goes back to OS and some other shows later...

their skin is actually not green like that but olive tan, and they are not seductive....

I had the opportunity to fellowship with Orions back in the 90s (whether angels or demons I do not know), but they know a lot about God and scripture...

I was engaged at the time and actually sat with these 3 girls and did not lust..so the real Orions were nothing like Star Trek..we were just friends.. and I have no clue really what kind of beings they were, aliens, angels, demons, or probably a little of all 3

Now Kirk would have gone quite a bit further than I did, but I am not Kirk, more like Spock with emotions.

Like I said, Star Trek is history.. and these girls claimed to be very old...maybe they were demons, fallen ones, but all I know is they heard the Word of God.....I did not fall into the sin of Genesis 6...

 

[dqhall]

No one forces you to watch Star Trek.
It is your fault if you cannot find better things to do.
It was only teenage wasteland.