Comments on: Star Trek‘s Abandoned Gay Episode Gets New Life

By: James

James — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:20:53 +0000

@Ted B (Charging Rhino): Should they have talked about bestiality too? No. So why would you gay stuff in? Its not like its just part of nature. It is unnatural. You guys are just trying make it work.

By: James

James — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:15:58 +0000

OMG that was Sick!!! Whats Wrong with these people. Gay people try to make themselves feel like they are in the right by saying anyone who speaks out against gayness is a bigot or a homophobes. Are you foreal??? We really need to talk about why men being with other men is not normal?? Are we as a people that forgone and warped that we need to even disccuss this?? You guys cant really tell that being gay is wrong? Foreal??? You do wrong and try to make everyone else except that what you are doing is right.

By the way. Men who like women and vice-versa ARE homophobes duh!!! We are because we men like women and do not understand how any man can want to be with another man. Makes no sense to us. This nothing to do with human rights or discrimination at all. They use these words to get sympathy. And gays make themselves look like total idiots trying to justify being gay!

So as long as there are normal people born. There will always be this issue because its just not right. Gay is wrong period. Just because you have an urge doesn’t mean that is the right thing to be doing.

You don’t get our disgust?? Then think about pedophiles and bestiality. Gross isn’t it? Thats the way we feel about so called homosexuals. Why you ask? Is it is because it is so unnatural???????? or should we all accept that as well? Should we just be like hey everybody can do whatever they feel??? No that would cause pure chaos.

By: Masaichi

Masaichi — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:13:11 +0000

@Mike: i saw that episode today, and i was thinking it seemed like a pretty obvious metaphor for gay rights.

By: Varian Huddleston

Varian Huddleston — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:54:58 +0000

@Mike K:

Really buddy? “Parental warnings”? People said the same thing about the episode where Captian Kirk(white guy)kisses Lt. Uhura (black woman). The same fear and bigotry was spued out even though in the episode the only reason why they kissed was because they were forced to do so(they censored back then as well). But the more things change the more they stay the same. Where as your father had to explain to you why people of different races were kissing, and you and to explain to your son why people of the same sex were kissing, your son will have to explain to your grandson why (in a world of genetic engineering)the girl wearing glasses was kissing the guy with a stutter on the holographic projector.

By: Mike K

Mike K — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:09:19 +0000

This is a disgrace. I had no warning that this was really “GAY TREK” and my 7 year old boy watched it with me. I found myself trying to explain why 2 men were in bed together kissing.

This is flat out WRONG and the folks that let this be released with out any parental warnings should be prosecuted.

By: MassEdge35

MassEdge35 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:31:44 +0000

I think it’s great that Phase II is getting all this press about their “gay” episode, but it was Hidden Frontier that first introduced substantive gay Star Trek characters. Check out their web site at http://www.hiddenfrontier.org/ I like Bobby Rice, but James Cawley simply cannot act. He only has that part because he owns the sets!

By: Throwback

Throwback — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:35:50 +0000

This is too bad. I’m sure they will have eradicated homosexuality by the 23rd century. Whether it is an error in socialization or an error in gene transcription, homosexuality is still an error. With their advanced technology, I’m sure it will be a correctable one. Straight couples, after viewing the “gene scan” of their unborn son or daughter, will be informed that their child will be gay and they will opt to have their fetus’ orientation reassigned. You will be extinct.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:18:47 +0000

Love it.

…and damn Peter Kirk is hot. I’d go on a semi-suicidal away mission with him anytime.

live long and prosper bitches.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:24:02 +0000

Nothing you idiot, but there is something wrong with you

By: romelbatallia

romelbatallia — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:55:24 +0000

It’s a good relationship between of them and quite suspense..

By: Chris Lord

Chris Lord — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:00:15 +0000

Thanks for this link. I’ve been snowbound for two days (in Portland, OR) and these episodes make this 50-something guy very, very happy. And not just the overtly gay episode, but the Chekhov episode was also excellent (and what a cutie the new guy is!)

By: Redheadguy

Redheadguy — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:23:33 +0000

I watched Part 1 of Blood & Fire this weekend. It was good. Bobby Rice did a great job and James Crawley does Kirk right. I love how Phase II improves with each episode and genuinely captures the essence of Star Trek. There’s been a lot of cast turnover, but the characters still ring true. Until Part 2 of Blood & Fire comes out next year, if you haven’t seen the previous episode , “World Enough and Time”, it’s awesome! Best Sulu story ever.

By: EdWoody

EdWoody — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:22:42 +0000

@Mike: As Ted already pointed out, it’s Hawk, not Wolf. And that has been claimed to be a urban legend by the creators of the film. Nevertheless, the spin-off lit writers picked up on it and the character has remained gay in the books. In fact, his widower is a main character in the Titan series.

By: John in CA

John in CA — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:25:01 +0000

Meh. Although I’m sorry to hear about Majel Barrett-Roddenberry’s death, I think the Star Trek franchise itself is a relic of the past. It was essentially a snapshot of what Americans thought the future would be like in the 1960s.

Aside from the troubling homophobia and sexism, the Federation represents an extremely eurocentric vision of the future. It is basically a hegemonic empire bent on galactic domination through cultural imperalism.

There’s plenty of physical diversity. But everyone quotes Shakespere (with a little Dante thrown in now and then), listens to classical music, and assumes traditional gender roles are absolute. I mean, the way Counselor Troi spews that old-school Freudian psychobabble, you’d think she got her psychiatry degree in the early 20th century.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:08:26 +0000

The backplot for Lt Wolf (Star Trek:First Contact) apparently had him in a gay relationship – sadly never put to film.

The Blood & Fire (part 1) is now out, excellent production and storyline.

By: The Guy By The Door

The Guy By The Door — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:36:14 +0000

But they did do transsexualism in the whole symbiont in a guy now in a woman, thing.

Interesting.

By: Ted B (Charging Rhino)

Ted B (Charging Rhino) — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:58:18 +0000

It’s always been a black-mark against Roddenberry that NONE of his scifi-series or movies EVER addressed gays even-existing. While fearless about rocking the boat and finding creative metaphors for all sorts of social-ills and inequities, homosexuality was the forbidden third-rail…even after his death. I don’t know if this was a blindspot or homophobia on his part…and it’s been greatly debated without a conclusion,. Perhaps his background as a LA cop in the 1950′s, certainly a deeply homophobic institution at that time influenced him. Perhaps it was the “slash fiction” re-imagining Kirk and Spook as lovers that spooked him? And the disingenuous promises that “the next series”, or “the next movie” would be gay-inclusive got old about 15 years ago.

It’ll be interesting to see if the new “restart” Star Trek movie continues Roddenberry’s narro-minded DADT vision, or “asks and tells”.

…and no, Lt Hawk doesn’t count.

By: HYHYBT

HYHYBT — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:12:22 +0000

@Mike: Except, if I remember rightly, their version of ex-gay therapy was both mandatory and effective…

By: dgz

dgz — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:14:02 +0000

10 bucks says Sulu comes out if there’s a sequel.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:42:34 +0000

TNG did an episode where there was a planet with people of no gender. When the enterprise crew showed up one of the native started having feeling for riker and identified themselves as a woman which was forbidden on the planet. It was suppose to make up for the gay episode that never aired.

By: tonybd1975

tonybd1975 — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:36:04 +0000

What’s wrong with the shirtless guys tits?

By: Chapeau

Chapeau — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:25:40 +0000

To Boldly go where … No man has gone before!

It’s about fucking time we saw some Gay loving on Star Trek.

By: Mimi

Mimi — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:06:02 +0000

I wonder what Gene and Majel would think of this new episode.

By: EdWoody

EdWoody — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:04:51 +0000

@ChicagoJimmy: Thankfully, she had the chance to complete her role as the computer voice for the new film before she passed. The film will no doubt be dedicated to her memory. RIP Majel.

As for this clip, a number of non-canon ST fan-films and literature have featured LGBT characters, and made it natural and unforced. All of which makes the show creators’ lack of inclusivity all the more notable and egregious. There’s really no explanation or excuse in the 21st century aside from homophobia, which is a real shame considering ST’s basic message.

On a baser note: Yay, hot gay skin scene!

By: ChicagoJimmy

ChicagoJimmy — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:32:36 +0000

In related news, I just read that Majel Barrett Roddenberry, the widow of “Star Trek” creator Gene Roddenberry died. Sad.