it seems, the character of captain kirk's nephew (ensign Peter Kirk)on upcoming NV episode "blood and fire" is gay and in a relationship (or something) with a guy, judging by the preview at the end of the NV ep. "world enough and time".
Great, i.m.o! I am sure it can't put off a lot of fans, it's only ONE (well, two) characters... And why should they be put off, it's "only" real life, 5% of the world's population etc etc....?
I expect one of them to die. And I think it will be Peter Kirk. But his death will focus more on it's effect on Captain Kirk then Peter's lover. That's my theory.
----------
Star Trek Canon is more of what you'd call "guidelines" then actual rules!
The late great Gene Roddenberry actually wanted a Star Trek series with an openly gay starship captian. Guess he got something of what he wanted here. Kinda sad he didn't live to see it.
shareIt's kind of sad that it took 43 years to get a gay character and that when it finally happens it's in the fan-based series. I highly congratulate the writers for doing this. I think it's awesome. But the fact that they had to be the first says a lot about Trek post-Roddenberry.
shareFirst? Umm...check out Star Trek: Hidden Frontier. www.hiddenfrontier.com
shareWell, how about the first GOOD one? Does that work?
share>> The late great Gene Roddenberry actually wanted a Star Trek series with an openly gay starship captian.
I doubt that is true. "Blood and Fire" was originally written for Next Gen, but the reason it was never filmed was that Roddenberry objected to the gay characters. For more on this, read the chapter about David Gerrold in Joel Engel's unauthorized bio of Roddenberry.
if it's unauthorized, how can we be expected to accept it as truth?
share[deleted]
"it's too bad when shows have lousy writing, acting and all; they have to resort to playing the 'gay' card to get any audience or press."
It takes a very astute critic indeed to be able to tell the writing is poor before they've seen the episode in question nor read the script.
Perhaps it is because the author, David Gerrold, has such a terrible track record, so that one can simply assume that anything he writes will be trash.
So, let's examine that track record. Was four votes shy of winning a Hugo award for his very first sale (The Trouble with Tribbles). Lost to multiple Hugo award winner Harlan Ellison (for City on the Edge of Forever). His novel, When Harlie Was One, was nominated for both the Hugo award and the Nebula award.
The semi-autobiographical The Martian Child won both the Hugo and the Nebula awards, and was made into a movie. (The producers of the movie changed Gerrold's character from a single gay man to a straight widower.) His book Jumping off the Planet won the Hal Clement award for Excellence.
Perhaps that assumption that the episode has "lousy writing" is premature.
[deleted]
[shrug] You know what you've seen in the past. You cannot possibly judge "Blood and Fire" without having seen it nor read the script. And yet your statement explicitly states that the writing is so poor that they had to play "the gay card" to attract an audience.
Your idea that they had to do something to attract an audience flies in the face of the facts, too: New Voyages/Phase II episodes get millions of downloads. Does that genuinely sound to you like they're hurting for an audience?
Also, how is this off-topic? The thread is about "gay character!" You made the claim that the only reason why a gay character is in the episode is 1) to draw in an audience they could not otherwise get and 2) the result of bad writing. All I've done is show that both of those conjectures have no basis in fact. I didn't even drift away from the topic.
[deleted]
"I know this is only your time to publicly post dishonestly by mentally masturbate your warped thinking with some semblace of public normalicy, and thus this is a waste of my time..."
You ARE aware that is not an argument, but simply an ad hominem attack, are you not?
[deleted]
[deleted]
ST is generally thought of as a leader breaking social barriers back when it was a single series in the sixties.
(IMHO)
When it grew into an enormous franchise, it seemed to become more of a follower with many of the TNG episodes seeming to blandly go where others had gone before. Thats why I look forward to B&F and other Phase II episodes that push the envelope once more and return Star Trek to its roots.
[deleted]
The New Voyages episode "World Enough and Time" was written and directed by Marc Scott Zicree, an industry professional with a LONG list of legitimate credits. The new Phase II episode "Blood and Fire" is written and directed by David Gerrold, another industry professional with a LONG list of credits, including a recent feature film. Both have written legitimate Trek episodes, and Gerrold's work on the original series produced one of the more famous and beloved episodes, while "World Enough and Time" was nominated for both the Nebula and Hugo awards, two of the highest honors in science fiction and industry fandom.
I seriously doubt that these industry professionals consider their work to be that of amateurs, as you so wrongly suggest.
John Hudgens
http://www.zteamproductions.com
[deleted]
As I was responding to allegations you made, that would make the off-topic posts yours to begin with, would it not?
Your constant need to insult anyone who posts a follow-up to your comments is very tiring. Whatever. New Voyages/Phase II may be unlicensed for now, but when it is made by professionals, and honored by professionals as quality work, I have no problem with it.
John Hudgens
http://www.zteamproductions.com
[deleted]
Nothing I posted was wrong in any sense of the word. I'm sorry that it doesn't bolster your arguments, but that seems to be a common occurence.
As to Whiting, I've never met the man, so he's hardly a "pal". However, you appear to have completely missed the point of the essay you linked to - "professionalism" is a quality that you would do well to familiarize yourself with.
John Hudgens
http://www.zteamproductions.com
[deleted]
In truth, the only posts of mine that have been removed were collateral damage from the wholesale removal of attack threads that you started. Having a discussion in one thread is not "following you around" - I have an interest in New Voyages/Phase II because of a new film I'm working on, so I keep an eye on these boards, along with others. If you post something in public, Anthony, don't act surprised when people respond to you.
If you want to talk "following around", let's talk about your attack posts (several of which were removed) in the Contributor's Help section last fall, in a thread that did not concern you in any way.
I have never "trolled" you - I have pointed out errors, inaccuracies, and misstatements from you in the past, but only because you were so brazen in trying to pass off falsehoods as "truth". I'm sorry that you feel that people refuting your misconceptions is "bullying", but then again, you have a history of misusing and misunderstanding the meanings of common words (such as "smear").
It's odd, you throw out an insulting comment about people who resort to "name calling", yet you do it constantly.
If you don't like facing facts and corrections, feel free to ignore my posts, as you want to command me to do to yours. I have as much right to speak my mind as you so. I'm sorry that bothers you, but this is a free country.
However, none of that is relevant here. You original point that New Voyages/Phase II played up a certain aspect of this episode to drum up audience and press is demonstrably false. As you could not have seen the finsihed episode yet, your comments about the "lousy" writing and acting also have no basis in fact. Feel free to refute that, if you can.
John Hudgens
http://www.zteamproductions.com
Hey all,
Just read that in an early draft of the ST: TNG pilot episode "Encounter at Farpoint" co-written by Gene Roddenberry that Geordi was suppose to be gay. I can understand such a thing being changed back in 1987. Even now it's still a pretty big TV taboo. Similar issues motivated Roddenberry to put TNG in syndication to avoid network interference. This thinking is carried substantially further with "Phase II" and other netcast series where film makers are free from network and studio constraints to take ST in a direction it appears Roddenberry truly seems to have wanted it to go.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
.
PREVIOUS POST BY OSCAR-35:
by oscar-35 (Mon Aug 4 2008 09:29:56)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
UPDATED Sun Nov 29 2009 15:24:10
The previous OFF TOPIC poster illustrates my need for a warning. "PS... an apology for any of my pet five IMDB trolls that might appear here after I respond to this thread. They are my IMDB forum stalkers. they have no thread manners, put wrong words in peoples mouths, nothing factual to add, feel better when they resort to personal attacks and have no real life!"
I know these terrible videos. You spinning this OFF topic to other simplistic matters to sound reputable.
I understand, it's your mental illness and you can't control yourself.
No ad hominem attacks; empty mind resorts to petty name calling.
Anthony Genovese/Oscar-35/ForPike,
WHY on earth are you editing a post that you made OVER FIFTEEN MONTHS AGO?!!
Also:
Sea Organization's Aaron Saxton, whose title was "Australia Church of Scientology International CMO", has escaped $cientology. Part 1 of 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HiF_89wVj4
The 2 videos below are a MUST WATCH. Very well done!!
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqPcZR54ST8
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP-LwYbaIow
-- MaxIsBack
Visit: http://ExScientologyKids.com
.
[deleted]
[deleted]
actually, it's widely known among star trek fans, since the incarnation of ST: TNG, that co-producer Brannon Braga (or maybe it was Rick Berman, I can't remember) was the homophobe behind the scenes. He refused to ever include a gay character. Scott Bakula, who, as you'll remember, played Captain Jonathan Archer on Enterprise, campaigned for a gay character, but was denied many times by Braga himself on the basis of it not being "important enough in the [whatever] century to include a homosexual character."
i saw it both online, and i believe in print in a gay magazine, which, when i find it, i'll post a link here to backup my claims.
but there's no evidence that gene roddenberry didn't wany any gay characters. majel barrett i think even said he'd wanted one long, long ago.
"Because destiny is a fickle bitch!"
[deleted]
Eugene "Rod" Roddenberry has separately confirmed, on video released on YouTube, that his father wanted to include gay characters.
It is also confirmed in numerous locations that various actors and writers, including Kate Mulgrew, lobbied to have gay characters included.
That they actively lobbied for gay characters to be included meant that they felt strongly about the subject. That management consistently refused meant that THEY felt equally strong about not including them. And yet, we have never actually heard a defense of that view. Unlike the actors, management has never even gone on record with their policy, let alone defended it. The actors and writers at least had the courage and commitment to go public with their views.
The argument that gay characters are not part of canon is accurate, but misleading. There is absolutely nothing in Star Trek that indicates that gays no longer exist in those centuries. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent gay characters from becoming canon, just as the Kazon and Ferengi later became canon, but certainly did not exist in the original series.
To argue that because gay characters have never been included and therefore SHOULD never be included is to argue that Star Trek should never have added anything new after June 3rd, 1969. And yet, they have created more than 300 new episodes after the original series went off the air, every last one of them being "non-canon" until they were produced. The existence or non-existence of gays in that time period is simply another such item, neither established nor contradicted by the things that ARE canon.
Therefore, the argument that gays are not a part of Star Trek canon, while accurate, is irrelevant. The real argument, still unsettled in some minds, is "SHOULD gays have been included in Star Trek?". The pro-gay arguments have supplied several reasons why they should have been. The anti-gay arguments have never actually presented a reason; I'd be very interested in hearing their views on WHY gays should not ever be in Star Trek.
There's a great line right in the beginning of Blood and Fire I, where ensign Kirk's fiance sneaks up behind him while laying on his bed.
He lays on top of his back and says "Guess who?"
Ensign Kirk says, "Lt. Sulu?"
The fiance laughs and says, "You wish!"
I laughed a long time on that one. There was another joke that broke the 4th wall a bit also, the target on red-shirts joke. Love that they broke character a bit to give the fans a laugh.
Did you tell LUKE..? Is THAT who you could tell??
[deleted]
Hey all,
In a prepared statement to The Advocate, Gene Roddenberry said:
"In the fifth season of 'Star Trek: The Next Generation,' viewers will see more shipboard life which will, among other things include gay crew members in day to day circumstances."
At the same time in another statement he says:
"I've never found it neccessary to do a special homosexual theme love story because people in the timeline of the twenty-fourth century will not be labled. I've always said when a good script comes along we'll consider it."
So its probably fair enough to say that if Roddenberry wasn't jumping up and down with excitement about it, he was AT LEAST open enough to the idea.
These quotes can be found at:
http://www.webpan.com/disinclair/advocate.html
They begin with the twelth paragraph about halfway down the page.
A forementioned Youtube posting where Roddenberry's son mentions his father's ideas about having gay characters on TNG can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJr1-IEWBCw
He talks about it around five minutes into the video.
ENJOY!!!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's certainly not going to be found in any of your posts, that's for sure...
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
[deleted]
There are no "facts" at that link, Cuddles - just your own biased opinion. You do not deal in facts or reality - you never have, and I doubt you ever will.
Bigot - pot/kettle/black, Cuddles. Enjoy your hatred - it's already destroyed your life, your credibility, and your reputation.
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
[deleted]
Actually, you DON'T trust anyone... for years, you've ranted about the "truth" (as you see it), but when person after person on these boards (and other sites) reads the bile and filth you spew and doesn't agree with you, you condemn them. Haven't you noticed that you've failed to rally even one real person to your side? Ever? (Forpike doesn't count, BTW, since that's an obvious alternate account of yours.) We've read your "facts", but unfortunately, they don't mesh with The Truth.
Also, say "hi" to Jim Gilchrist and Shawna Forde next time you all crawl into your dunghole together... nice crowd of "people" you associate with, Cuddles...
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
[deleted]
You are a weirdo. A complete weirdo. You talk to yourself, talk about yourself to yourself and now use your own name in an inane attempt to act like a moderator defending YOU. A complete weirdo.
And don't tell me what to do, Oscar. Seriously. Your life is not a success and that record certainly doesn't give you the authority to advise anyone. You have no work, you have no friends and your family spurns you. Your NEW girlfriend walked! You live in some hovel watching Star Trek all alone wishing you were a movie star. Yes sir. Why don't you tell US how to live, LOSER. LMAO!!!
What gay Trek gossip? Are you nuts? Stupid question. Of course you are.
Come out of the cccclllloooosssseeeeetttttt Tonyyyyy. We know how you feel about Thalek.
[deleted]
YOU'RE the dumbass that started the "gay Trek" thread.
What is with you? What do you have against gays and Mexicans?
And just in case anyone would like to SEE Oscar's opinion, check out his flicker site....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/70958415@N02/page2/
[deleted]
The hypocrisy come from you is stunning, Genovese... I see having your entire posting history wiped from the IMDB again (what's this now, the third time?) hasn't taught you anything...
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
You have to remember that Mr. Oscar-35 Genovese genuinely believes that what he's doing is not wrong. So, every time he gets his posts deleted, it cannot be because he's done something wrong; it must be undue bias on the part of the administrators, or the administrators are actually under our control. Thus, no matter how many times he gets banned, there's no lesson to be learned, except how persistent we are in harassing him. He cannot learn any lesson until he understands that what he's doing is wrong, and that there's actually a lesson to learn. Until that happens (and I don't know what catastrophic event would cause him to understand that), they can ban him as many times as they like and he will NOT change his behavior.
He has been like this for about twelve years now, and nothing anyone has ever told him has changed his mind. Not us, not the administrators, not even the police. (There are no innocent third parties, of course: the moment any third party agrees with the admins and us, they "join our camp".)
He cannot be reasoned with. He cannot be bargained with. People have tried for a couple of decades, and it hasn't happened. Don't waste your precious time on trying to change one who cannot change.
[deleted]
You just crack yourself up, don't you. I can almost see you cackling away there in your mommy's guest room amongst your Star Trek figurines with the Redshirt laboring on in the background. That poor show trying desperately to be funny.
Truth is YOU are the bully. I can testify to that. So can Thalek. You are CERTAINLY the stalker (reference signs you painted and put up for the USS Angeles and constant surveillance of Rob Caves, driving by Thalek's). And you suffered from depression yourself, didn't you? So there's the mental patient qualification.
You're right. Attacks and smears add nothing to the discussion. So give it a rest, why don't you?
[deleted]
You wrote it about how you think Roddenberry views gays. Like you would know. Then you advertise your blog like it's some biblical tome we should all heed. Because you said so.
The whole thing is scary. You are scary. And the post is stupid. The article is ignorant and divisive and homophobic. Why is the gay agenda such a big issue for you? You spout all this crap on your flicker page about liberty and freedom, but it appears that only YOU are entitled to any of it.
What's worse is that the only reason you wrote it is because the guys making Hidden Frontier will not let you play with them. So you're attacking them from every angle. Copyright, sexuality, stalking their set and homes, degrading them in public.
Leave people alone. Come out of the closet and give it a rest.
[deleted]
Readers have judged, Genovese.... they've found your rants worthless and without merit. Bye bye now...
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
What the hell are you bellowing about? WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT GAY TREK?? Did YOU write Star Trek? Are you the Super Hero who must protect it? Do you have a cape?
Bottom line. You sit there in mommy's guest room surrounded by your unopened action figures, the epitome of the Trekkie fan boy, trek posters on the walls, the smell of stale sweat and hostess permeating the room. You haven't worked in front of a camera in DECADES. 1999 to be exact. Your career is nothing more than stand-in/double work. You've never had a speaking role. Yet you flaunt this crappy "career" to convention planners and other fans like it makes you the new mogul of Hollywood. It makes you nothing, Genovese, but unemployed. While flaunting this "career" along the way, you have hurt people, Genovese. Financially injured people because you don't follow through, you lie, you are one cheap bastard, your entire "career" is some facade and woe to the one who believes it. You think you should be "guesting" at conventions?? WHY?? And we won't even mention the conventions you've snuck into so you didn't have to pay the entry fee.
Trek doesn't need you. If Spock had ran into you on an alien planet, he would have pinched, blasted and swept up. Gay trek isn't canon? How about cheap liars who screw people over, Genovese? Is THAT canon?
Quoting the bible doesn't make you right. You have to LIVE with honor.
[deleted]
Still a liar, I see.
Still trying to sell the Redshirt as a fan video I see. LOL.
You've disgraced yourself for over 15 years nearly every day with your bragging and lying and bullying and heinous performances/productions.
"Differring" only has one 'r' in it. Every day you prove you're a moron. Or is it morron.
WHAT are you talking about??? First hand links? All anyone has to do is read what you write. You are homophobic, you hate immigrants, particularly those from Mexico, and you have a real problem with profanity. How about if YOU try some maturity. Allow gay people to live their own lives without you spurting hate all over them. How they live, what they watch, what they produce....what is it to you?
Obviously you are cloaking an issue.
And use spell check for pete's sake.
[deleted]
Nope - sorry, Genovese, but your are not an authority, and cannot speak on facts that you do not understand. Your own bloviations posted on another site do not represent facts, nor do they represent an unbiased opinion. Your "factually answered" post is nothing more than your usual bag of lies.
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
[deleted]
They have, Genovese - they've decided that you're a liar, and that your opinions are not to be trusted.
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
Following is my "differring" opinion:
Anthony Genovese is a big fake who hates Mexicans and Gays.
His photos of him with celebrities are, for the most part, photoshopped.
His tale of credits is a lie. Most of them are complete falsehood.
His work stinks. Kalifornia Kaliedoscope and the Redshirt were just awful. Other than than we have only brief glimpses as a stand in and one memorable situation in which he attempted to upstage Robert Redford by moving in the background.
[deleted]
I think I'll make a website called "The Redshirt Sucked". I'll get the people who did see it at that meeting to give their opinion of it. We all know how that's going to go. And from then on, I'll refer to it frequently as undisputed truth. Journalistic veracity. As "factual". I'll do that every day and make fun of anyone, like you, who object to it.
I love you, too, Oscar. XX
[deleted]
"Factually answered" by YOU. LMAO!!! You reference YOUR OWN WEBSITE as proof of WHAT? WHAT? That you don't like gays??? WE GOT IT! WE KNOW! We do not CARE!
Ew. Man, you are a piece of work. I think you just want a very romantic gay Mexican guy to stop by your house.
I've been wathcing this thread for some time and gotten quite a few chuckles from it by Mr.Chuckles (Oscar) himself trying to 'prove' that homosexuality does not exist in the ST future and then everyone else constantly disproving him and destroying his credibility. So I thought I would add my two cents worth.
Homosexuality is never explicitly mention whether it exists or not in any ST series or movie. Therefore by logic it is possible that it does exists. After all, they never mention butterscotch pudding but I'm sure it's in the replicators. Also, they have inter-human-racial relationships, inter-species relationships, even mechanical and human relationships; so why not same sex relationships?
Another thing comes to mind, if it were two women behaving this way, would Senor Oscar have an problem with it?
[deleted]
Again Oscar you try to sound so magnanimous and superior by trying to talk down to people who oppose your way of thinking.
I put no words in anyones mouth, I expressed my own thoughts on the subject. Also, I did not equate sexual orientation with butterscotch pudding (hmmm, must try that with my gf-food for thougt) [sorry mild distraction] but was relating by example - your attempt to dismiss the simile fails.
Next, yes I am aware that it is fictional. If you notice I said 'ST future" implying that most intelligent people would equate that bit of shorthand to mean the 'fictional future where Star Trek takes place and is entirely seperate from our own reality'. [another sidebar: an interesting discussion could be had that fictional universes are in fact realities that bleed over into ours through the thoughts of some special people - again i digress]
As for my last little comment: many people who claim to be against gay scenes are in fact titlated by lesbian scenes.
===========================
Carpe Carpio
[deleted]
No you just go around the tree with uproven facts and your supposed 'expertise'.
I am curious about what you mean by 'sexual validation' since that is what you changed the topic to. Personally, I am very secure in my heterosexuallity and am not threatened by anyone who is straight, gay, bi, trans, abstinal. I do draw the line with beastiality. How to my 'all-over-the-map comments' betray me? Betray me to what?
My original posts raised some valid points but you once again ignore them and try to divert the topic to something else (this is a tactic you have used on my comments before and with other people). I commented on the original post. Refute my statements logically.
==============
Carpe Carpio
[deleted]
I will ask the same of you that you demand of others, NAME YOUR SOURCE with links. Your own rambling posts on a blog site does not count as supporting facts.
Which brings another thought to mind, just what defines what is CANON? I do not say this to denegrate anyones posting to-date, but we have been batting this word around without setting a good definition to set the parameters of this point. I think I will start a new tread on this topic so as not to confuse issues.
==============
Carpe Carpio
The chances are that homosexuality will still exist in the 24th century, seeing as it's been with us for so long already. It may not have been portrayed in Star Trek, but if gays were seen in the show, well it would simply be a continuation of the principles of diversity and equality that characterise the show. This can only be a good thing.
share[deleted]
Often it is not the individual who is responsible- the media will speculate endlessly on a celebrity's sexuality if even the slightest hint exists they might be gay, until they come out one way or the other.
shareOscar, you are the biggest homophobic nutball that ever walked. Tell me, why does ANYONE insist that they have no interest in others opinion of them and then hold "stop-the-presses" news conferences? Example,your pals at the Tea Parties. You know, the Tea Party meetings and events you attend? Supposedly you are there as "patriots", yet these are the exact same people photographed at Tea Party events that are at immigration protests and assorted other gatherings. Proudly parading around in red, white and blue holding some stupid sign about day laborers. Including you.
And, if you watch closely, you seem to be "casually" moving to get into the line of the camera angle. Nonchalantly oozing over to be in the picture with your sign with some nasty quote on it. How is your performance on those protest videos any different than anyone else? At least gay people have a freedom issue to fight for. You're fighting AGAINST someone having the same freedom you enjoy to harass and insult all over the web! FREEDOM OF SPEECH you bellow as you hurtfully insult people creating fan videos that make yours look like a three year old shot it. As to the tea party people, I've come to hear that most of them are mob-for-hire. Those who aren't camera hungry.
As for your homophobia, you've gathered the standard for "there ain't no gays in Star Trek", put it on a big pole, and single-handedly are racing around waving it. You posted completely off topic about it. You brought it up! Why? To what purpose? Because you have a righteous heart and feel like the "truth must come out"? Come on, now.
You don't like gays. You don't like immigrants. You don't like Mexican Americans. There's a long list of who you don't like. You've made your stance CRYSTAL clear.
That's why you're all alone.
[deleted]
I replied with on topic material concerning why gay people sometimes have to 'clear the air'. In response, you accuse me of stalking.
Making such false accusations constitutes libel. You can be held responsible for libelous comments, and will be if you continue to make them.
[deleted]
Your accusations become more and more spurious.
shareYo, knucklehead. How is YOUR homophobia OFF TOPIC on this thread?? And how is YOUR homophobia NOT negative?
Love it when you update a month old post! Also love how you think your posts are "interesting". More like biased, disturbing, stupid, intrusive, divisive, untruthful and morally/ethically fetid.
Come out of the closet Genovese!!!
[deleted]
There, there, butcher of fan videos and stalker of Hidden Frontier and USS Angeles.
shareYes, every time I repeat what you say, it's "copying". Just like we were in 4th grade. It isn't MOCKING. Right, Oscar-Anthony Genovese?
Thanks for calling me an Innovator. No one can imitate that Red Shirt quality, I assure you. We won't even try. Because we aren't idiots.
I AM the PROVEN last one here!! YAY!
Like me or not, you're still annoyed with me, huh? (PS, copying. Not mocking.)
[deleted]
Originator ='s 'Innovater', 2nd =s 'imitater', and then the rest ='s just the idiots..
***WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? Don't try to be clever. You just look stupider if that's at all possible.
I've just finished watching some episodes, these suck. Just because people dress up in star trek costumes and use familiar props doesn't make it Star Trek.
****Oscar of the Genovese Clan, the Redshirt Filmette for which YOU were totally responsible for the script, the concept, the lighting, the retarded outmoded equipment used, all of it, was pathetically worse than any other fan video on earth. There. That should clear it up for you. I saw it. It was just the worst thing on earth. It was condescending garbage that dragged on and on and on. The colors bled into faces, the sound was tinny, the script was IN LABOR!!!! Bwahahhhahahaaa.... It was CONSTIPATED it was so bad. It was mash a minor hahahaha joke in the public's face and GGGRRRIIINNNNDDDD it until there is little or no doubt that you think EVERYONE is too stupid to "get it". How in the world can you go to ANYONE'S production of ANYTHING and give criticism? Not only is your OOODLES worse, but you won't even put it out there and prove me wrong!! BECAUSE YOU KNOW I'M ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! It's GARBAGE. Just because you have a union card doesn't make YOU an actor let alone a DIRECTOR.
[deleted]
Sure bet.
The Redshirt Filmette One Hit Wonder Abortion. The fan video YOU are 100% responsible for. Remember that horrible 13 minutes of skin crawling quality in cinema??
Release it or you are a coward. The end.
Back to you!
[deleted]
Speaking of fan videos which IS The topic here....when will we see yours?
How about showing YOUR creation, Anthony Genovese? Scared?
PS: Thanks for that NON homophobic blathering. Consistently proving my point.
- on gay Trek and it's scenes--
Clearly, homosexuals and their closeted supporters yearnings are in agreement on this topic. <yawn> No surpise here.
The Star Trek OFFICIAL Canon poves different.
---------------
We've had this discussion before. Prove to me that there is an OFFICIAL canon and that it is specific in stating that there are no gay people in the 'Star Trek future'.
I want reputable sources and links.
==============
'I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you' - Mal
[deleted]
Who cares? Who the hell cares? So what? You've dedicated 12 years of your life running hysterically around in a circle screaming that HF and NV are "gay trek" and not canon. So what? First, even YOU admit they are gay trek and second, since when did you make that decision? We can't resurrect old Roddenberry to ask, and if we did and he was on our side, you'd still argue the point with HIM, so I repeat SO WHAT, Anthony Genovese?? Why is it such a bother to you? Why can't you leave Hidden Frontier and New Voyages alone? Why do you feel it is your "special" duty to run over and smear their reputation, insult their work, and bomb every forum under their name? Why, Anthony Genovese? Let me answer that:
Because YOUR fan video which is NOT gay (but yet had many gay actors in it) is unwatchable. It is likely the worst thing on film. The script, the lighting, the camera angles, the sound, all really, really terrible. To distract from this abominated 13 minutes of slobbering and condescending rubbish, you run amok on the IMDB insulting other fan videos. You will neither release your star-studded, spectacular, obviously perfect, trek canon filled, oscar winning piece or even allow it to be viewed after the first several viewing fell flat. I was at one of those horrible viewings. It just astounds me that you have anything to say about anyone's work anywhere.
Shut up or put up. Show the Redshirt or shut the hell up, you coward.
Once again you spout hearsay and undocumented evidence.
Well Oscar, since you won't provide documented references, I will:
----
In 1991, series creator Gene Roddenberry told The Advocate that the
next season of The Next Generation would feature gay characters as part of
everyday life on the Enterprise-D, but his death meant that those promises
never materialized. Speaking with AfterElton, Brannon Braga - one of the
ranchise's most high-profile writers and producers - said that the failure
of Star Trek to tackle homosexuality was something that he and his coworkers
regretted.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107384-Star-Trek-Producer-Laments-
Lack-of-Gays
---------------
DS9 episode Reprisal (I beleive) Dax kisses another female.
----------
Documented proof within canon.
==============
'I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you' - Mal
[deleted]
So even faced with an article stipulating that Roddenberry DID intend to add a gay member to the cast, and even though the thought of ANY progressive show of ANY kind being cast without one in these days, you still argue the point? And I know why:
Because you want to put down the work of other fan video producers because YOUR fan video which is NOT gay (but yet had many gay actors in it) is unwatchable. It is likely the worst thing on film. The script, the lighting, the camera angles, the sound, all really, really terrible. To distract from this abominated 13 minutes of slobbering and condescending rubbish, you run amok on the IMDB insulting other fan videos. You will neither release your star-studded, spectacular, obviously perfect, trek canon filled, oscar winning piece or even allow it to be viewed after the first several viewing fell flat. I was at one of those horrible viewings. It just astounds me that you have anything to say about anyone's work anywhere.
Shut up or put up. Show the Redshirt or shut the hell up, you coward.
Oscar, your arrogance knows no bounds, does it? Just because you do not agree with the source you immediately dismiss it and label it a hoax. You also deny on screen evidence without viewing it.
here is the video link: http://youtu.be/bvfJRLTNmUI
here is another: http://youtu.be/lX8MwpsZI6U (please watch the entire clip
Again, where is your documented proof. Until you provide credible links, you are just blowing smoke.
==============
'I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you' - Mal
[deleted]
YAWN!
==============
'I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you' - Mal
[deleted]
This isn't about pro-gay Star Trek but about the existance of homosexuality in the Star Trek Future. True, there has been personal attacks on both sides. But face it, you have deamanded of others that you yourself refuse to comply to and have been repeatedly called on it. As for being closed minded, yours is firmly shut.
==============
'I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you' - Mal
[deleted]
I speak Oscar-ese. Allow me to translate:
"I have lost the argument, but wait not for me to acknowledge that. As such a loser, I prefer to babble non-sensibly on about my disappointment that not everyone agrees with me! It's either that or my screaming, spit in the face, frothing at the mouth stupidity. Those are your choices, Bobj. I will decide what is the central issue. I will decide what is on topic. I will decide who is right or wrong. All of this by virtue of my $200 union card. It makes me legitimate. It makes me king. Signed Anthony Genovese."
(Side bar thought: Why don't you use punctuation correctly? This.... ) ..... is imperative to your thought when you are trying, oh so hard, to act superior. When acting superior, it's best that you APPEAR superior instead of like a babbling dunderhead.)
Thank you for that translation Sing. I thought I had made my point pretty clear with a reputable source (both in magazine and person - but Oscar better be careful on haow he labels the due to slander/libel laws) and actual footage from 'in canon' material.
Ya know, he also hasn't posted any reliable source supporting his side of the arguemnt either.
Again, thanks for your help.
==============
'I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you' - Mal
Because it is published, it is "libel". "Slander" is the spoken form.
Unfortunately, none of us can afford a lawyer to sue him, so he mistakenly believes that what he is doing is not libel. In fact, he frequently touts his libels as being a "public service" to the "uninformed", which he considers to be pretty much everyone but himself.
Don't expect him to be careful about what he says due to a fear of committing libel. Nor should you expect him to be any more careful about his future accuracy than he has in the past.
There is Trek Canon and nothing else, official. It's solely owned, trademarked, and copyrighted by Viacom/CBS/Paramount. No one else can make decisions on re-using or using it legally. Piracy is the course some chose. No such thing as Gay Trek. You have seen pages of IMDB trolls attacking the messenger of a simple idea backed by truthful citation. They go on and on with childish attacks and smears only designed to not answer the discussion points. THeir postings are ad nauseum and ad hominem with their OFF topic attacks. The mob mentality illness is with them. You only have to read what they have posted themselves. You decide. Mature people know they're pathetic and wrong.
Having to try to unemotionally, academically & truthfully discuss this gay trek topic often gets this sad outcome with the posters supporting a militant pro-gay position on this issue.
This thread is full of the worst examples of Star Trek revisionist pro-gay non-Canon and obviously malicious Off Topic posts. Some on the gay trek side need to change if these forums are to be more than trollish entertainment for a sick few.
I tried and accomplished presenting my points about topic issues. Many posts were maliciously deleted and therefore cause De Facto censorship or 'spin' on these matters. Think critically here, please. They want no opposition or discussion.
But when these opposing commenters/camp foolishly show readers their need to start a thread from an obvious FALSE premise, misquote or put words into others mouths or attribute weird internal false motives to their anonymous opponents commenting, or post inuendo for truth without citating a factual source, or falsely compare non-equivlent facts & situations, or post personal single anecdotal fairytales and hearsay, or feel the need to report many opposing thread posts for moderators review & censorship; these pro-gay ridiculous thread discussion gimics are easily seen as false, not helping their cause, unhelpful and desparately meaningless.
You, however proved the the Star Trek pro-gay non-Canon camp are not interested in hearing diversity of opinions. They look to be vicious, malicious, closed minded, biased, not being open and allowing differing opinions & opposing views without resorting to 'gimics', mocking, personal attacks, malicious inuendo, troll invective attacks, or childish tactics. Your position ultimately loses on proof and presentation.
Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.
Oscar, so that we may reply to your posts properly, instead of endlessly updating old posts, could you make new ones? It is impossible to determine who you are responding to when you keep updating old messages.
share[deleted]
Just FYI, this is a standard post, word for word. Oscar has an entire arsenal of what he continues to believe are just blazing pearls of wisdom. This one....
"I'm capable of speaking for myself, thanks. You got an answer, just not the one some militants wanted to expose...I speak for myself, thanks. BTW: "
has appeared as he involuntarily exited every forum in the last 10 years including trek.com, shatner.com, variety.com, etc.
We think the general LACK of ANY sex has driven him over the edge.
[deleted]