The Debasement of Star Trek

[Keny Suda]

Originally posted by Robbert Raets
>Some of the characters from the parallel universe in DS9 were homosexual.

Yeah, most of which had 'decadence' written all over them....
I'm sorry, but I just didn't think that is the way to portray homosexuality.

You mean a step back reffering to what Hugh Casey said in the initial post?
But you are right, most homosexual characters are antagonists or used as exaggerated comedy(?) stereotypes.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Captain Zymmer
BUt myself not being homosexual would probably mess it all up too with bad stereotypes and preconceptions.

Yea, like having Lesbian Goth Trills that fawn over the PCs?

Lest you think I'm kidding, ask Aslan to update you on some of his more "erotic" adventures.

[Captain Zymmer]

Originally posted by Don Mappin


Yea, like having Lesbian Goth Trills that fawn over the PCs?

Lest you think I'm kidding, ask Aslan to update you on some of his more "erotic" adventures.

Erotic is a misleading word...

There is no actual described sex in my games...

There are plenty of relationships though...

Someday Don I will tell you the story of the Magna-Roman Chief of Conn, Captain's God Daugther and Chief Engineer's Daughter and their trip to Risa...

To qutoe the player "OKsy so Day 3 is like... 'I am Oberon, the King of the Faeries! Who is this tree that is speaking to me?'"

[Imagus]

Originally posted by Highway Hoss
Speaking of alien, one criticism that has been leveled at Trek ever since TOS has been the syndrome, where all the characters, regardless of supposed nationality, reflect only American values. It seems to me that an infusion of a more international perspective would be more in the spirit of Trek. Certainly a more worldly perspective would be an acknowledgement of IDIC. As for an alien captain...maybe a non-american would be an important step also.

I'd agree with you where TNG, TOS and Voyager were concerned, they did tend to reflect only the prevailing American value systems. Although, on the last point, I should point out that Picard was supposedly a Frenchman, played by an Englishman

I thought DS9 did cover a less US-centric point of view. The views of the Bajorans and so on were at least given a good airing, and there was always room for other opinions. And as one guide author pointed out, there's a remarkable subtext running through the first few seasons of that spinoff which deals with a lot of the issues currently affecting the middle east.

[Robbert Raets]

>...ask Aslan to update you on some of his more "erotic" adventures.

No. No. We're certainly not asking that.

[dimeboy99]

Originally posted by Keny Suda
I somewhere read in a newspaper that they changed the actress of Clarice Starling in Hannibal because of Jodie Foster's "unorthodox living". It would be "problematic expecially under the current [Bush] government."

Give me a break. This coming from the original land of tolerance, Germany.

[Keny Suda]

Originally posted by dimeboy99
Give me a break. This coming from the original land of tolerance, Germany.

The newspaper only passed on information from the US movie industrie. If it was just a rumor I can't say.

Germany being the "original land of tolerance" - well, don't know where you heard this. True our politicans and large part of the population support tolerance and equality, but we also have our share of narrow minded "individuals".

[prophetsteve]

Don't blame Berman and Braga for making Trek be "safe TV". Heck, except for a few episodes TNG never pushed any borders. Neither did the TOSMovies, most of which were under Roddenberry's banner.

I have my own dislike for B&B at times but lets be fair - Trek went "safe" long before ol' Berman took the helm. As soon as it became mainstream it became toned down, a trend that happens when fringe media becomes a broad-based hit.

Obviously B&B aren't helping the situation, but that particular part of the franchise no their fault.

Geez, I am sticking up of for Berman and Braga. Surely one of the signs of the apocalypse.

[Captain Zymmer]

Originally posted by dimeboy99


Give me a break. This coming from the original land of tolerance, Germany.

I find this an offensive statement dimeboy99, would you please clarify or retract it.

Tis is not the time for people to be taking shots at other nations in public forms...not with a damn war brewing.

Thankyou

[Highway Hoss]

Originally qouted by Imagus I thought DS9 did cover a less US-centric point of view. The views of the Bajorans and so on were at least given a good airing, and there was always room for other opinions. And as one guide author pointed out, there's a remarkable subtext running through the first few seasons of that spinoff which deals with a lot of the issues currently affecting the middle east.

Good point, Imagus. Probably one reason that Deep Space Nine appeals to me more than TNG or Voy. Also liked the fact that it took a look at the world of trek beyond Starfleet.

[The Kurgan]

I'd like to comment on the homosexual discussion from earlier posts, but before I do let me 'place' myself so you know where I'm coming from and there are no [hopefully] misunderstandings. I'm against it, quite simply, however I don't hate or despise anyone. I simply have made my own choice that I believe it to be immoral, abberant behaviour. I've had gay friends that respected my right to think that as much as I respected their right to make a choice for their life I disagreed with. No biggie, and no pandering involved. I've made a number of choices for my own life that my gay friends thought I was wrong or insane for choosing, and they said so, but nevertheless it was my choice and we agreed to disagree, end of story. I say this as a qualifier because all too often people hear you say you don't believe in homosexuality and they just love to start screaming bigot, which just angers me and causes me to want to start throwing dictionaries and thesauruses at them in return for being so damned stupid. The dictionary sense and intent of the word bigot is not as clear cut as most assume. "Intollerance for a group" could apply to democrats vs. republicans or vegetarians vs. carnivores. The intent of the words is actually fairly clear, I've always thought, but apparently not so for many. Not words that should be tossed around casually or commonly. Ok, all of that said, my comment for the actual Trek thread is this: I don't think having a homosexual character as a main protagonist is 'cutting edge' or 'dangerous', etc. as has been implied. Remember, homosexuals are not a race, not born, not identified by physical characteristics (please, no jokes, I know, I know...), and do not have any form of racial heritage. I know some people believe there is evidence that some homosexuals are 'born that way' but I personally don't buy that, and there is no definitive evidence, simply a few suspicions with a small amount of possible empirical data that could easily be micro-evolutionary in origin (meaning changes can take place after the fact to a small degree, enough to be noticable). All that aside, I can't see comparing such a character to groundbreaking circumstances as having the first international cast and promoting equality between races. It's just not the same thing in any shape or fashion. Now, if we were to have a Taliban ambassador to the Federation on the ship.... (scary thought: the U.S.S. Jihad. It's five year mission, to seek out the great satan in a heretical universe....led by Captain Mua'dib and his stout first officer, Stillgar...)

[Dan Gurden]

HOWEVER!

If you look at this thread, IT IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY!

That was an allegory for the TYPE of character that TOS dared to put on our screens, while the popular TNG, DS9 and Voyager have to be more political...

There was simply not many other characters allegorys to use.

What you consider about homosexuality Kurgan, is not even relevant and the content of another thread, one that keeps popping up every now and again. And that is why I am not going to answer you, however much I want to retort...

[Hugh Casey]

Originally posted by Dan Gurden

If you look at this thread, IT IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY!

That was an allegory for the TYPE of character that TOS dared to put on our screens, while the popular TNG, DS9 and Voyager have to be more political...

There was simply not many other characters allegorys to use.

I appreciate that, Dan. I had no intention of making this another "gay" thread... I should have thought more before using that analogy. I apologize.

But let's not all jump on Kurgan. He's right... he's not being a bigot. He is allowed to disagree with anyone's lifestyle choice. Hell, I know people who've shown more intolerance over someone else's choice of dinner than what he displayed here. I do not agree with his views, and he won't agree with mine. That's allowed, and in fact, desirable in a pluralistic society. If we are all allowed to disagree, then the consensus ends up falling somewhere in the middle, and we end up doing the best and most right thing as a society. This is what we fight for, and what we are fighting for now. This is what our enemies want to end.

Besides, what Kurgan uttered was a "dangerous" thought. This is the type of thing that I meant was missing from modern Trek. TOS was not afraid of being controversial. They had nothing to loose (certainly not an audience... they HAD NONE! ) They could, and would, take chances, because that's what you do when you have nothing to loose. And, more often than not, it worked.

It's OK to NOT be PC ( and GM's can be NPC's ). If we don't air the dangerous thoughts, then we never have the chance to defend our own. And we never get to grow.

And I fear that Trek has stopped growing.

Just my $0.02... YMMV

Hugh

[Robbert Raets]

One of the values portrayed by 'Star Trek' is leaving people the choice of their own morals. A big thing in democracies today as well. The big problem with that, is that you'd have to leave people who are against self-determination and democracy alone. There are always big discussion (at least here in Holland) about how much freedom should be granted to political parties and/or non-political organisations whose view are extremist (or worse!)

$0.03

[The Kurgan]

Heh, I just knew, no matter how hard I tried (and I formally give up and won't bother anymore) that some would misunderstand and totally miss the point. The majority of the dialogue was simply to qualify my actual ON TOPIC comment without creating asumptions or, as is inevitable, people to ignore the post entirely assuming I was just trashing someone, which I wasn't. It was said (not by me, but by the posts I was replying to) that the concept of a homosexual main character (aka bridge officer, etc.) would be dangerous, cutting edge, groundbreaking, etc. All I was attempting to do was put it into perspective by showing the lack of association that was previously implied with persons and character types that do qualify for those adjectives. Plain and simple. Anyone seeing more than that in my comment is just looking to argue anyway, regardless of actual topic, and I think that speaks for itself.