Star Trek New Voyages’ James Cawley Talks To TrekMovie.com | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Star Trek New Voyages’ James Cawley Talks To TrekMovie.com March 30, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Fan Productions , trackback

In recent years Star Trek fan films have been growing in popularity and the most popular has been Star Trek New Voyages. This is mostly due to the production values and some pretty serious guest stars. TrekMovie.com talked to show star and creator James Cawley to find out what is behind this attempt to complete Star Trek’s 5 year mission. “I felt that the characters had more to say, I think Kirk Spock and McCoy are more relevant now than even in 1969,” explains Cawley. That belief set Cawley off on his rather expensive ‘hobby’ almost 10 years ago. Now with two high profile episodes released, millions of downloads, and another star-led episode about to premiere Cawley feels like they are finally getting close to their goal of making their fan production ‘as if you were to sit down and watch the TV in 1969.’

Original Sets – Original Actors
What probably got people’s attention most was the incredibly accurate recreation of the interior sets, props and uniforms of Star Trek: The Original Series. Cawley says that he began collecting and building props in 1997. Funding this hobby through his successful career as an Elvis impersonator, he poured money into building sets and making costumes which matched the look of TOS. Eventually friends and fans found out about the project and by 2003 a pilot “Come What May” was shot as a proof of concept (but not released). A year later the team released “In Harms Way” which featured William Windom reprising his role as Cmdr. Matt Decker from “The Doomsday Machine.” Cawley claims “In Harms Way” has been downloaded over 30 million times and it set the trend for New Voyages to involve professionals who were involved with the original series. Up next was Walter Koenig who reprised his role as Pavel Chekov, suddenly aging rapidly. Koenig also brought on TOS vet writer D.C. Fontana to pen a script. “To Serve All My Days” was released last November and was well received by many fans, but was also controversial over how it played a little fast and loose with continuity. But like with the previous episode, STNV used the popularity to attract more people to project.

The next episode to be released will be “World Enough and Time” which has a premiere for the cast and crew this week and will be launched on the net in April. Koenig was happy with his experience and mentioned it to George Takei who then expressed interest in getting involved. The script is based on an unused story pitch for  Star Trek Phase II by Michael Reaves. Reaves came on board to produce and co-write the STNV script along with Marc Scott Zicree, who also directed the episode. The plot revolves around some anomaly (always an anomaly!) that somehow explains Sulu’s aging. Cawley won’t provide details but says that it isn’t time travel or the same disease Chekov had in “To Serve All My Days.” The team has also brought in Grace Lee Whitney who reprises her role as Rand. She will be seen with Takei on the bridge of the ISS Excelsior (Sulu’s ship from Star Trek VI) which the team also lovingly recreated just for the episode.

 

“World Enough and Time” is the episode that Cawley feels will really break the mold of ‘fan films.’ He explains that his goal for the episode was to truly make it ‘indistinguishable with modern network television.’ “We listened to a lot of criticisms from fans and we love it, we want to get better. For this one we really upped the ante visually and performance wise it is going to astound people what we have been able to accomplish this time” The ‘ante upping’ was not only in terms of Takei and Zicree, but the whole production. The episode was shot using 3 High Def cameras and several hundreds of thousands of dollars of donated lighting. They also brought in a professional director of photography and an acting coach. This last item is important, as acting tends to be the weakest link in all fan films including Star Trek New Voyages. Cawley also states that there are over 600 effects shots, and more importantly a new effects team lead by former Foundation artists Ron Thornton and Lee Stringer (now teachers at the DAVE school)


Takei, Zicree and Cawley on the set

New Voyages Gets Dochtermanized
One of the weaker aspects of STNV to date has been the special effects. This is something that Cawley freely acknowledges. “The problem was that the effects were done by guys with their own vision, but they were donating it on the terms that they could do it their own way,” explains Cawley. The problem was their way gave the effects a very modern feel that stood in stark contrast to the rest of the production which had the goal of matching the original show. Cawley promises that, starting with the Takei episode, everything will be as it should be. "No more barrel roles, no more road runner backups,” promises the producer. The new team from the DAVE school and the STNV producers are now on the same page to create shots that according to Cawley “look like the 4th season had the shown continued.” To ensure this trend continues they have brought in Daren Dochterman to act as special effects supervisor starting with the next episode (after “World Enough and Time”). Daren is well known to TrekMovie.com readers as leading the CGI team for Directors Edition of Star Trek: The Motion Picture as well as proposing the digital enhancement TOS. Although Daren is not working on the effects for the “World Enough and Time” he did create a new title sequence that will be first used with that episode. Cawley is thrilled with Daren joining the team, saying “there is no one who captures the original series the way Daren Dochterman does”


Dochterman invades New Voyages

 

Seeking Controversy
The next episode from STNV is sure to raise some eyebrows; Trek is finally going gay. “Blood and Fire” will be an adaptation of script by David Gerrold, the writer for “Trouble With Tribbles.” The script was originally written 20 years ago for Star Trek: The Next Generation, but was shelved due to its homosexual characters. Although Gene Roddenberry had originally expressed his approval, the idea was killed off by Paramount. Cawley sees that moment as fateful for TNG, saying “As great as TNG was, when that decision was made it forever altered Star TrekStar Trek was no longer the first.” D.C. Fontana helped get Cawley and Gerrold together and Gerrold was intrigued by the idea. To convert the TNG script to TOS they brought in Carlos Pedraza from the TNG fan film series Hidden Frontier, which also features gay characters. Cawley knows that even after all these years the show will be controversial, but says “the best episodes of Star Trek dealt with relevant issues, the issues of the day thrown into the future was the heart and soul of the show.”

"Blood and Fire" starts shooting in June and will be released around Halloween. The plot revolves around an encounter with another Starfleet vessel with everyone on board dead.  The situation is related to a disease (the AIDS allegory) which is so virulent that there are standing orders to self destruct any ship where it breaks out. The two central figures are an openly gay couple on board the Enterprise, one of whom is Kirk’s nephew Peter (seen in “Operation – Annihilate”). The show will depict the couple just like any other romantic pair on the show, with no prejudices.


oh boy

Mudd’s back – Then Uhura
After "Blood and Fire," STNV will follow up with “The Sky Above, The Mudd Below” – yes Harry Mudd is back. Cawley thought the show could use the change of pace, “it is much more light hearted than everything attempted….After 3 deadly serious episodes you need something to lighten up a little bit.” Harry Mudd will be played by J.G. Hertzler (better known as DS9’s Martok). The episode will also include Mudd’s battleaxe of a wife Stella (or maybe the android Stella…or both), but that role has yet to be cast. Cawley says that fans should expect more familiar faces thanks to the new Mudd, “J.G. is pulling in some heavy guest stars.” The y will also use this episode as an opportunity to get off the sets and do some location shooting. After the Mudd episode the team plan on bringing back Nichelle Nichols to reprise her role as Uhura. DS9 (and Of Gods and Men) writers Ethan Calk and Jack Trevino are currently working with Nichols on the script. Trevino tells TrekMovie.com “Nichelle truly believes there are many layers to the character that, as an actor, she never had the opportunity to explore during the original series.”

Finishing the Mission
Cawley hopes to keep up the pace of doing 2 or hopefully more shows per year. To that end he has permanently standing sets and a dedicated crew for the show. “Our goal is to finish the 4th and 5th season of Star Trek,” says Cawley. He even has the end planned out “I want to see the ship dock and the crew get those new uniforms…and have them not like them.”

 
STNV…looking a lot better

for more info…check out StarTrekNewVoyages.com

all images courtesy Star Trek New Voyages

Comments

1. Ed - March 30, 2007

Have been watching this since the first ep., and have been very impressed. Maybe it isn’t as high quality as a tv show would be but it is very good. Just my opinion.

2. Driver - March 30, 2007

New Voyages is pure dreck. But not as god awful as HiddenFrontier and the rest of ‘em.

3. steve - March 30, 2007

Might not be so bad if Cawley stayed behind the camera– his Kirk renders this series completely unwatchable. If you think Shatner’s toupee is bad, try watching this!

4. joebob - March 30, 2007

Look… it may not be perfect, but it’s all we’ve got… I for one enjoy at least some glimpse into the universe I know and love…

5. Skippy 2k - March 30, 2007

I am glad to hear “no more barrel rolls”. I mean while I like them in some cases, such as smaller craft as seen on BSG with its viper/raider battles I allways liked the more “majestic” movement of the trek ships. I’m thinking there were some shots in “To serve all my days” that worked well as being more than the slower shots but not so far as the rolls and jumps from previous NV eps. These new pics above look great!

The article makes the effects sound as though they haven’t been that good but aside from the movements they have seemed good to me. Cool to hear even though Daren didn’t get the remastered job he will be working on the “New” episodes. Would be cool (allthough I’m sure with all the work going into future eps it won’t happen) if they could go back and do the previous shots with less of the rolls and jumps, they come off as a bit cartoony to me. Something along the lines of Exeter which to me got the shots down great with the latest ep(or the parts that are out :-).

Looking forward to these the new episodes!

6. steve-o - March 30, 2007

Yay! gay characters finally :)

I was thinking that maybe in the future they killed all of us at birth or something.
on a side note…. wont it get kinda cheezy if every time they introduce a characte from tos he/she has been infected with an aging sickness or some equivilant of one.

7. Sam Belil - March 30, 2007

I really enjoy the “New Voyages” episodes. once you get the past the fact that “it ain’t the real thing” — it is really good story telling. Kudos to Cawley and Crew, BTW — I totally LOVED “In Harm’s Way”. Keep up the nice work!

8. DarkKnight - March 30, 2007

Yeah, that’s great. Condemn the show because of one actor, or an actor’s hair. Completely look past the involvement of original Trek alumni, the awesome sets, the production values, and the overall LOVE for Star Trek, and just don’t watch it because of a dude’s hair, or because Cawley isn’t Shatner.

It sounds stupid when I say it, but even stupider when driver and steve did.

9. Magic_Al - March 30, 2007

Sounds like STNV is responding positively to legitimate criticism. The addition of a professional DP and more lights should certainly help the show look better. I’m sure they cringe as much as we do when they look at their footage and see the main character giving a long speech in an unlit portion of the set.

10. Evil Braga - March 30, 2007

What stinks about the one or two episodes a year is that I really don’t want to see a gay episode. That’s not pushing boundries. It’s already been done in every media. If they go one episode a year, that means those who have no interest in this plot will have 2 years between episodes.

It’s like they are only doing this episode to pat themselves on the back and say “see, we made gay Trek.” I’m sure my opinion doesn’t mean much to them, and I’m sure one less download out of a million won’t affect them, but I think it’s a waste.

I want to be entertained, not preached to.

I’ll pass on that episode.

11. jonboc - March 30, 2007

The thing that drew me into this was the incredible sets…yet it is those very exact replicas that make it hard to watch. It’s like everthing is replicated perfectly…except the actors. They seem like imposters…who are these people walking around on Kirk’s Enterprise? It would have been so much easier to for me to get into a different crew on another Federation ship than to watch New Voyages calling themselves Kirk and company on a replica of the 1966 sets. It’s also distracting when everything is top notch, but the acting and directing isn’t. I’m sooo glad they have an acting coach…I just hope some of the actors take to it. Not everyone is an actor…and with all due respect, some of the folks in new voyages have as much business “acting” as I do.

I’ve watched every episode so far, and they are improving. I’ll continue to tune in and hope there are some, among the cast, that have some natural acting ability that can be pulled to the surface . Because that is what truly needs to happen for this series to flourish. The novely of the sets is over. The novelty of original guest stars is wearing thin already. The novelty of original series writers will also grow thin unless they can come up with the acting ability to deliver the lines with the polish they deserve.

A love of Trek doesn’t guarantee good Trek….but I recognize that they are trying. Like I said, I’ve watched every episode and some were worth the download, some were not. I’ll certainly be downloading the new one in April and look forward to the improvements Cawley spoke of.

12. Michael Hall - March 30, 2007

Terrible to have your prejudices challenged, ain’t it?

13. ety3 - March 30, 2007

I’ve watched all of NV so far. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the set recreations and such; I’ve marveled at the guest stars and guest writers … but I still prefer the first two-thirds of the “Starship Exeter” episode “Tressaurian Intersection” to any full episode of “New Voyages” I’ve seen thus far.

14. Jeff - March 30, 2007

Just think of it as a “road company” version of Star Trek. Same set, same props, different actors.

15. Lendorien - March 30, 2007

To 12.

Meh. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs. Some folks think homosexuality is wrong. There are a myriad of reasons for their beliefs. Just because they’d prefer that Trek not jump onto the “Gay rights bandwagon” or whatever, doesn’t mean that their opinion isn’t valid, doesn’t have merit or isn’t without heartfelt and rational reasoning behind it. I get sick and tired of people bashing the folks who conscientiously object to the gay lifestyle. Just because they don’t agree with it doesn’t automatically make them evil or unloving or “homophobic”. In a lot of cases it’s quite the opposite.

As for the episode, it’ll be interesting to see where they go with it. AIDS IS a sexually transmitted disease, and like it or not, the male homosexual community is afflicted with it at a higher percentage in the United States than Heterosexuals (this is far from the case in Africa, etc). I am always interested in tightly written plots and this could be interesting depending on how it’s presented. I do hope it doesn’t turn into the preachy dreck that TNG sometimes descended to.

I’ve never been a huge fan of Gerrold’s writing, and while “Trouble with Tribbles” is a classic, I’ve found few of his other works worth spending great amounts of time on. I’m hoping that even with it’s controversial subject that he’ll be up to making it compelling to watch.

16. Anthony Pascale - March 30, 2007

guys gays in trek is controversial and is worth discussing.
….but i don’t want to see any anti-gay rhetoric

otherwise I just want to say i enjoyed talking to James and plan on doing more coverage for STNV. I am encouraged by their progress especially the inclusion Daren onto the team.

keep an eye out for a review of the takei episode in the coming weeks

17. Stanklin T. McFibberich - March 30, 2007

I will not be wasting my time on any more New Voyages. I watched one episode and it was agony. It doesn’t matter if they are improving the effects or bringing on directors of photography. The bottom line is that they have these people trying to play the original series characters. I do not fault them for wanting to make these films for fun. Heck, I’d like to go tramping around the original series bridge myself. I just have no interest in seeing these people trying to play Kirk, Spock, etc.
As far as ‘controversial’ stories go, I really have no need for that in Star Trek or any other series. I watch for entertainment, not for messages or shock value.
Having read a ton of David Gerrold articles in old Starlog magazines over the years, I’m not really a fan. “Tribbles” was a good episode of Star Trek, but I’ve never seen anything else of his that was worth a second look. (OK, maybe an episode or two of “Land of the Lost.” ;) )
The idea that this is somehow the 4th season is a nice fantasy for those who want to go with that, but I’m not buying it.

18. Xai - March 30, 2007

These people are amatuers and making the attempt to improve doing something they enjoy. They won’t replace the originals.
I applaud the attempt.

To the cast…Enjoy what you do… there will always be enough critics to go around… and run over when they aren’t looking.

19. TiberiusK - March 30, 2007

I’m happy that they are doing the tossed gay episode.

FYI: It’s a myth that the network didn’t allow the episode. GR himself didn’t want to do it, but, as always, he blamed it on the network when asked about it.

20. =A= - March 30, 2007

huh! i disagree they are doing gay episode!!! come on i cant let my child watch it..

21. TiberiusK - March 30, 2007

you can’t expose your child to alternative lifestyles? Better not watch Trek at all in that case.

22. Steve Austin - March 30, 2007

20…
i would let my kid watch it…in fact i think that is the point. in the future no one cares if you are gay. I doubt they are going to show gay sex. but two guys kissing is no dif than a guy and a girl

that being said it looks like they are going for stunt casting and stunt topics….but it does help with publicity.

it is kind of hard to really judge STNV. when compared to community theater of other amatuer productions it is pretty good. but if they want us to judge it as a true continuation of the series…then I have yet to see it reach those levels. But I will check out the next episode if it really is supposed to be that much better but if it isnt then i will give up on it

23. TiberiusK - March 30, 2007

To Serve All My Days was actually really entertaining. Sometimes the characters, especially McCoy and Scotty don’t act like the real characters, but overall, it’s fun and entertaining. The CGI is sometimes nicer than TOS-R.

24. James Heaney - March 30, 2007

Whooo… I’ve lost a lot of faith in STNV since “TSAMD.” I looked forward to the big breakthrough (Walter Koenig! D.C. Fontana! REAL TREK!) for over a year and was *sorely* disappointed in the entire episode. The acting was, as earlier commented upon, terrible, and the pacing was painful, as if Ms. Fontana had been heavily rewritten multiple times to warp all her good material into… well, bad material. Either that or she lost her edge, which would be equally saddening. The continuity I didn’t particularly care about, but the surprise ending was a little too surprising to be poignant.

Eh, I’ll invest the hour on WEAT. They’re obviously trying, and it might amount to something worth watching. Heck, it might even be great. And I’m enough of a fanboy that I’ll enjoy it pretty much no matter what.

“Blood and Fire”… there’s a name I recognized immediately. I like the idea of updating a shelved TNG script, especially one that was so controversial. Trek is pretty cool when it gets into the controversy. But Star Trek is also, in general, completely off-base when it comes to sexuality, and I assume David Gerrold will miss all the same points concerning homosexuality. So I hope its entertaining, thought-provoking, investigative, and more than a self-congratulatory “we’re so edgy” piece. I won’t hope for a serious discussion of the nature of human sexuality or anything that might remotely favor my position, because GR wasn’t exactly into that, but I can disagree with the outcome of the episode without automatically hating it.

BTW, Anthony, now that I’ve said that, what exactly qualifies as “anti-gay rhetoric”? I mean, there are admins out there who assume that if you believe homosexuality is immoral, you must be a homophobe and therefore they censor you immediately, and then there are the admins who brook disagreement and discussion, but who won’t tolerate anything deliberately slanderous against homosexuals or offensive name-calling or the like.

Having now complained thoroughly about the last episode and the prospects for the future ones, I applaud the efforts of the STNV team and look forward to seeing what they put forth next.

25. New Horizon - March 30, 2007

We’ve come so far, yet still have so far to go. If some of the reactions here are any indication, then Gene was probably right to pull the plug on this episode back in the day, it probably would have killed Next Gen dead in it’s tracks. Can’t let a kid watch it? Seriously, has that child ever seen a guy and girl kiss? It’s no different. My parents were homophobic, but they realized that it was because they were products of their time…and they didn’t want me to be the same. They wanted the cycle to end with them. Somehow, they managed to look beyond their own fears and wash them completely away from me. My parents were able to leap beyond their personal limitations. That’s the type of people Gene presented to us in Trek, folks who were able to see that their views …while fine for them, were not universal.

26. TiberiusK - March 30, 2007

#25 Nicely said.

27. steve-o - March 30, 2007

#20-

I would’nt let my child watch it either! omg those homos, and their hidden agenda to turn the worlds population into gay stereotypes! so go ahead and let your children get back to watching television shows on your local cable that im sure contain nothing that would influence a child to do drugs, have sex, steal, or kill.
you should be just as fearful of “straight” relationships on television or in the media.

I hope you guys realize i am just kidding .. although i do not agree with “=A=”‘s opinion there is nothing anyone can do about it..

28. jonboc - March 30, 2007

A gay themed episode is fine as long as its not heavy handed. The promo pics aren’t very promising. When the trumpets play and horns are honking, drawing attention to it being a “gay episode” that’s when I begin to worry. Star Trek has never been about hitting you over the head with controversy. It’s great when they offer a little food for thought in the course of a story, but when the headlines bark an episode’s importance and how groundbreaking it is…, it takes the wind right out of the sails. When a gay themed episode can come and go, without so much fanfare…and with out much reaction, one way or the other…..then, we will have truly achieved something.

29. mrregular - March 30, 2007

“In Harm’s Way” and “To Serve All My Days” kept my attention a lot longer than the last two Next Generation films, let me tell you!
Sure there are some things that the New Voyages team can improve but they are working on it, and appreciate the input.
Looking forward to the upcoming “World Enough and Time”!

30. CmdrR - March 30, 2007

Sulu in leather? Oh wait, the gay episode is the one after this one.

OK, c’mon! Somebody had to make a joke here… It’s getting way too serious. And there HAVE been gay episodes in trek. DS9′s ‘Rejoined.’ I’m never quite sure whether ‘Turnabout Intruder’ qualifies. My jaw drops when it’s on and my brain fizzles out.

Anywho… STNV is great if only for the fact that it’s such a labor of love by all concerned. Paramount has ensured nobody on this project gets rich, or in some cases even breaks even.

James Cawley deserves his kudos. And I’m sure I’m not the only one who’ll be watching.

Oh, and I liked the barrel role. The whole ‘In Harm’s Way’ episode had already gone so far over the top, it was like a visual ‘what the hell!’ Just waiting to see whether they make the Chekov storyline rejoin overall continuity.

31. Buckaroohawk - March 30, 2007

I, too, applaud the New Voyages crew for their efforts. I’ve watched all of the episodes from the quirky “Come What May” to the much more elegant “To Serve All My Days.” There has been nothing but improvement throughout the NV series run. The acting, special effects, storytelling, action, pacing, lighting, editing; everything has gotten better each time. I have no problem with Cawley’s rendition of Kirk, and the actors who play LaSalle and Young Chekov are extremely talented.

I do, however, think that Starship Exeter is a bit better at capturing the overall “feel” of TOS Trek than New Voyages. Perhaps it’s the fact that New Voyages relies a little too much on its ability to bring former Trek actors on board. It takes me out of things a bit and shoehorns them into some limited stories because the age discrepancies need to be explained.

In any case, New Voyages continues to be the benchmark, and also keeps raising the bar, by which all other fan films are judged. They’re also keeping a spotlight on Trek, and we should all be thankful for that.

32. Driver - March 30, 2007

“There are always possibilities.”

http://blogs.indiewire.com/jamesisrael/archives/spock-kirk-bath.jpg

Oh, what could have been.

33. Londo - March 31, 2007

What the HELL is Sulu wearing?!

It’s funny – just now when I read NV were doing “Blood and Fire” my first thought was “Do they have the rights to that script?” Aaargh, I’m turning into a lawyer.

I liked Cawley’s quote about the new uniforms :-|)

34. Superfluous Jones - March 31, 2007

Cawley would do better if he tried acting, instead of impersonating William Shatner doing Kirk. Enough with the facial mimicry already. I guess you should expect this from somebody who’s a professional impersonator. But his acting is the second worst, right behind the guy who plays Bones. Ecccchhhhh!

35. OTV - March 31, 2007

33,

In response to ur “What the HELL is Sulu wearing” that would be an EV suit as seen in the TOS episode “The Tholian Web”… Kirk and the landing party wore those when they boarded the derilict USS Defiant. I’ve checked stills from that episodes and the costume is identical.

I have no problems with New Voyages whatsoever… so they stunt cast its true… but to be prefectly honest i have no quarrels with stunt casting. If their acting improves and alongside the addition of the likes of Takei and Hertzler.

One thing you folks need to remember is that sometimes its not always the characters and actors that make the episodes what they are.. sometimes it is the VFX, sometimes it is the music, sometimes its the lighting and sometimes its the cinematography.

A professional DOP is good as is top par VFX team like Dochterman and the guys at DAVE and the acting coach works as well.

Kudos to those guys… kudos….

Whats that old saying:

“How do you get to Carniege Hall??

PRACTICE… PRACTICE… PRACTICE”

36. Jeffrey S. Nelson - March 31, 2007

If James Cawley would just comb his hair with the part on the left side of his face like Shatner, he would look much more Kirk-like. Or as Stanky McFibberich would say more Kirk-like for a “fake Kirk.”

37. Stanklin T. McFibberich - March 31, 2007

re:36. Thanks, Jeffrey. I forgot to include ‘fake Kirk’ in my post above.

I keep waiting for James Cawley to break into a rousing rendition of “Burnin’ Love”. ;)

And everyone remember, we must never be critical of any “controversial themes” :|

38. Al - March 31, 2007

Why does Cawley wear such an awful toupee? In tribute to Shatner? Every time I’ve tried to watch a NV ep, it gets in the way

39. brady - March 31, 2007

Ive been a big supporter of new voyages since i first found it…..as for exeter finishing ill believe it when i see it,they havent updated there web site in over a year…..theyve moved on we should too. I found it interesting that DOC came aboard after his blog on fan films and how bad NV was including Crawleys acting..but im sure hes there to let them know what theyre doin wrong as usual.As for the GAY episode….trek has always been good at how SUBTLE they were at getting their point across…perhaps a planet where the inhabitants can only have sex with another planets inhabitants. They always got their point in through the BACKDOOR….guess they still are. LMAO sorry couldnt resist ;)

40. Evil Braga - March 31, 2007

All right– a few things– please reread my post. It wasn’t ANTI-GAY. Just because I don’t want to see yet another gay theme doesn’t make me unenlightened, or intolerant. If anything, it’s the other way around. It seems to be in fashion to bash people that aren’t embracing gay themes. THEY are the truly intolerant. I have no problem with gay people or gay themed shows. But I have no desire to watch it.

This episode will not break any ground. It is only controversial because they have one episode or two a year and this is not exactly a broad based topic that will entertain. And that’s what Trek should be–entertainment, not preachiness.

When GR protested Vietnam, he did it in an entertaining way. He didn’t do it in some over the top, gorefest.

I don’t like seeing guys making out with each other. It grosses me out, and feeling that way and having that opinion doesn’t make me intolerant and I get sick of the smugness that people have thinking that in order to not be labeled intolerant, you have to accept anything with a gay theme.

#39 Brady is right. Subtlety is how Trek made their points. This is hardly subtle.

It’s Brokeback Trek. Been done. I’ll pass.

41. brady - March 31, 2007

thank you #40 ….yaknow I never tire of hearing that,,,ya think I would, but I dont lol

42. Cephas - March 31, 2007

I’m confused by this statement in the article:

“Eventually friends and fans found out about the project and by 2003 a pilot “Come What May” was shot as a proof of concept (but not released). ”

At the time I discovered New Voyages, “Come What May” was the only episode they had made and it was available for download. That sounds like a release to me…

43. John N - March 31, 2007

It astounds me when I hear people saying how they watch solely to be entertained, and not to have their perceptions challenged.

Am I missing something? Have I been watching a different Star Trek than these people? I thought that was the POINT of Star Trek.

As far as not letting your child watch the homosexually-themed episode, I’m glad that you weren’t a parent in the 60′s, when you would have forbidden your child from watching an episode of a white man kissing a black woman. What solely entertainment, non-controversial show was that? Oh yeah… Star Trek.

44. Stanklin T. McFibberich - March 31, 2007

re: 43

Not that astounding. It may be somebody’s point of Star Trek. It is not mine.

I like it because of its visual style, the music, the stories, the characters, and the actors who played them at that time.

If a story has a message, that’s fine. Let me figure that out for myself if I want to. I don’t need to have it announced to me that, “you gotta watch this because it’s controversial.”

I want to be entertained by entertainment.

Somebody above stated something to the effect that this particular theme is no different to allow a child to watch than shows with themes of drugs, violence, promiscuity, etc. In a sense, he is right. I tend to not watch or be entertained by those types of shows, either. That’s why I basically watch no ‘modern’ TV or movies. They don’t entertain me. In another sense, there is a huge difference, which is quite obvious, no matter what your point-of-view is on the topic.

People have as much right to be against something as they have the right to be for something. It seems like nowadays, to be “open-minded” is defined as, “you must accept everything as being right.” I don’t buy it.
People who go around screaming “prejudice” all the time should maybe look at themselves and their own prejudices. It’s easy for people to scream “prejudice” at those who disagree with their own particular topic of interest, but these same people likely do the very same thing when it comes to some other topic. When I first watched “Plato’s Stepchildren,” I was not shocked by Kirk kissing Uhura. I don’t remember thinking anything about it at all. I did feel it was one of the lamer episodes, but that is another thing.

Believe me, I am not only talking about the gay theme here. I am in no way trying to imply anything in regards to whatever opinion I have on that subject. Some people will read it one way, and other people will read it another way, depending on their own “prejudices.” I’m just tired of being expected to embrace or examine certain ideas, lifestyles, or philosophies through entertainment just because they are controversial, or ‘cutting-edge.’ There is plenty of that in the news and the real world if I want to examine those issues.

Somebody above also mentioned that the Star Trek series dealt with those things subtly, rather than hitting you over the head with it. That’s a good thing. I never felt the series was being preachy or controversial in any way. Just fun to watch. If you took some message from it, fine, but it never *seemed* like the main point, even if that was sometimes the intention of the writers/creators.

I want to be entertained by fictional TV and movies. If I want to examine issues, I’ll choose another medium to do that.

45. Michael Reaves - March 31, 2007

Enjoyed the article. I only have one quibble with it — Marc Zicree and I co-wrote the script based on a pitch I made to Phase II. We also co-produced, and Marc directed.

46. Evil Braga - March 31, 2007

Who says that forcing men on men on the audience is having perceptions challenged? Again, all of this stuff HAS been done before. There is no groundbreaking.

This episode will not challenge any perceptions. 2005 was the year of the gay movie. Not that anything done there was groundbreaking either, but at this point, it’s old hat.

All they are accomplishing here is placating Gerrold’s desire to see this script made. It’s a nice feather in their cap to have such a great writer involved in their production.

But I still have no interest in watching this episode.

Star Trek’s point is to be an entertaining television show. They did not set out to change the world. It’s not the bible. It’s a TV show. Not gospel. As I said before, when the original series tackled issues, they did so in a subtle way and did not let their goals stop them from being a tv show first.

When Kirk and Uhura kissed, it wasn’t some episode about them having a romance. They were FORCED to do it. Not that either minded, but the point was that GR did NOT beat us over the head with an interracial kiss. It wasn’t an episode themed around an interracial kiss. There was no preachy aspect. It just happened.

#44 made some damn good points. Openminded does not mean accepting everything as right. It does not mean you have to give up your beliefs in right and wrong. You have a right not to want to watch gay themed agendas and not be considered intolerant or closed minded.

To try to say that anyone who doesn’t like gay themed TV is somehow a bigot or less tolerant is actually hypocritical because THAT is intolerant. You are basically saying, “like what I like, or be given a label.”

I don’t need a fan production of Star Trek to preach to me. They should focus on entertainment, because that’s what TV is. So I’ll pass on this episode, and hope the next one is more in line with what Star Trek is all about to me.

47. k.f. - March 31, 2007

I enjoyed NV Come what may, and the little featurette center chair, but the last one In harms way was horrid IMHO. I hope the next is better. Also to whom it may concern regarding the article above about NV, a spell check would have been nice!

48. JB - March 31, 2007

Call me picky, but having given each of the various TOS fan film projects a try, so far I’ve found them too painful to watch, with poor scripts and worse acting. Cawley’s portrayal of Kirk invites more disbelief than I can willingly suspend. Even Fontana’s script.left me wondering whether she’d lost a few steps over the years. All of that said, I’m ok with the fan film concept, although it might be better to use new characters & ships, as the Exeter and Farragut projects are doing, so that the viewer has fewer preconceptions going in, and I hope they continue to improve.

49. TiberiusK - March 31, 2007

Come on Braga,

The argument that Trek has always been subtle just doesn’t hold up. There are countless example of preachy Trek. A Private Little War, Let that Be Your Last Battlefield, etc., Even Enterprise, which for the most part lacked social commentary had its preachy moments: Stigma, Chosen Realm, The Breach.

My version of “what Star Trek is all about” includes some of the best preachy examples of social commentary thinly disguised as science fiction. There is usually nothing subtle about what the writers are trying to say.

50. Dennis Bailey - March 31, 2007

#39: “..as for exeter finishing …they’ve moved on we should too.”

Folks in the audience “moving on” is understandable given the length of time it’s taking us to release Act Three. That said, those of us working on “Tressaurian Intersection” have *not* “moved on,” and Act Three will be released pretty soon.

Thanks. :)

51. hitch1969© - March 31, 2007

Yes! Yes! YES!!!!!

way too cool for skewl… The New Voyages. The Doc™. Gay Trek, Sulu Dance™, Mudd!!!!

I’m so totally stoked. The New Voyages folks are doing God’s work here. Just so totally kewl.

BEST!!

=h=

52. patio - March 31, 2007

THANK GOD the effects will be given the “older” feel. Thats why I liked Starship Exeter much over STNV. I just really wish Exeter can get back on schedule…

53. steve623 - March 31, 2007

All I can say is “Hooray for gay Trek”.

54. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - March 31, 2007

Lord Garth Loves what they are trying to acomplish, the sets, the new DarenDoc effects , even the basic outlines of the stories but Lord Garth unfortunately must concur with many of his fellow posters the glaring weak link in New Voyages is Cawley’s Kirk. I know the actors are trying to bring their own tone to the role and I fully realize it is his sandbox that New Voyages is playing in but I just don’t buy it . If he stayed behind the camera and got someone with more Kirk like qualities I think the show could really shine. That’s why I feel Exeter is a far superior effort (what’s available of Tressurian anyway) Not only have they already really nailed the effects with less hoopla and professional help, but the sets, the tone and peril of TOS era and most importantly you really believe the characters they have created. They don’t need to have an TOS guest star each episode in some sort of rapid aging/ time warp gimick. When I first saw the Exeter landing party beam down to a ravaged planetside and over the horizon you see the wrecked primary saucer of the USS Kongo I thought to myself HOLY F***ing Wow!!! That’s Star Trek!! I just don’t buy Cawley’s Kirk, nor the guy playing Bones at all. Not because they don’t look like or aren’t Shatner or Kelly, but because they don’t have a bit of their characters qualities and of the big three their acting is the weakest. Again I applaud their efforts and fully support them and If they want to do a gay episode good for them too. But it seems each epsiode has some sort of gimick which they really shouldn’t need and I do believe they need a change in the captain’s chair and sickbay. Marta will still dance for them because they are did it, what ever the verdict they went out and did it.

55. Dennis Bailey - March 31, 2007

I think that the actors on “New Voyages” handle the material they’re working with pretty well. I don’t find the casting at all bothersome.

56. THEETrekMaster - March 31, 2007

When is the hermaphrodite episode coming up? ;-)
The pictures of the two guys kissing were…ugh….

Is Anthony going to turn this into a sex site? Where’s the hetero equal time?

TTM

57. Redshirt - March 31, 2007

Fan Films can be really good. but it really comes down to execution. Some fan films I just cant stand. I tried watching Hidden Frontier and I could not get into it at all.I could not find one good thing about it. To be fair New Voyages has had some good strong points but at first its effects wasn’t one of them. As most have said before the sets are incredible.
I’m glad marginally they have improved on this.
Only if now they can give us endings that made any sense.
I would like them to go back and fix those silly effects on the Doomsday machine episode and I could be more happier. I felt the stories were decent. Not the best thing invented next to slice bread but it has potential. I wish they would go more into the short showcase episodes. Like they did with Sulu.

I’m not certain gay trek is what it needs. Its very touchy topic but I feel its ten years too late to make a big deal out of it. . But the producers of New Voyages are trying to go out of there way to make a big deal. I’ve already seen Bisexuals in space and I hardly even cared. I’ve already seen 2 women kiss on DS9. Not much of a big whoop either.

I have pretty much given up on Exeter. Which I usually prefer anyway. With all due respect as much as I do enjoy them I don’t see that finishing anytime soon. I am looking forward to Gods and Men as much as the story doesn’t look like it makes much sense.

As far the costumes they describe as the uniforms no one likes are concerned they should get the Motion Picture Outfits lol. That would be a sight to see lol.

58. Olde Timey Fan - March 31, 2007

Too bad I ate dinner before looking at that photo. While the Powers-that-Be in New York and Hollywood have decreed it as the New Sacrament, a lot of us peons beg to disagree.

As for ST-TNV… just shows you that acting, casting and well-written scripts are more important than technology and a knack for carpentry Or blatant pandering. It was dodgy before assaulting my senses. Now it’s just plain sucks. Yeah — that kind of suck.

NO THANKS!

59. Olde Timey Fan - March 31, 2007

Hey you know what would make for a really far out Sci-Fi concept? Of course no one would ever believe it, not for a moment, no matter how good the makeup, costumes and CG:

It would be about a normal, well-adjusted, married, God-fearing, perhaps even heroic man who loves his family and knows right-from-wrong. You might even make him a Christian!

We could watch him struggle against all the forces of evil the universe can throw at him, trying to make him slide to the Dark Side. But somehow, through sheer force of character, he never gives in to temptation or expediency, even when they tempt him at his weakest spots.

Naw… nobody would ever believe it. Never mind.

60. Dennis Bailey - March 31, 2007

#58: “While the Powers-that-Be in New York and Hollywood have decreed it as the New Sacrament, a lot of us peons beg to disagree.”

Disagree all you like – just don’t think “the peons” you refer are entitled to any influence whatever over who other folks love or marry. ;)

61. T Negative - March 31, 2007

I watched one of these STNV and I wish I could have those several minutes back. What garbage. It’s not STAR TREK and just because Takei, Whitney, and Koenig are in it and it doesn’t make it Trek either. While I enjoyed them in “legitimate” Trek they don’t belong in some 4th rate production. The gay episode is being done to simply get attention and being done for all the wrong reasons. This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen. Fan films are terrible. In fact I’ve never seen a good one. Let Hollywood or other major studios produce Trek, not some guy living in Texas or wherever he’s from.

62. Stanklin T. McFibberich - March 31, 2007

re: 59. Olde Timey Fan

We could use more shows like the one you describe.

63. John N - March 31, 2007

49. TiberiusK

Completely agree with you. “Let that Be Your Last Battlefield” came to my mind as well.

59. Olde Timey Fan

Isn’t 60 years of Hollywood backlog enough to satisfy you with regards to this type of film making?

Perhaps it’s time to let some other voices be heard…

64. Dennis Bailey - March 31, 2007

#62: “We could use more shows like the one you describe.”

If enough people support them financially they’ll exist. Don’t kid yourself that there are “other forces” involved that trump the primacy of the profit motive here.

65. Stanklin T. McFibberich - March 31, 2007

60

Is it possible some of the people who are interested in the qualities Olde Timey Fan spoke of might continue to be entitled to the occasional new production that fits their needs??? Oh, they have their archives, so I guess they don’t need any more. Heaven forbid that anything promoting traditional values could be produced.

66. Olde Timey Fan - March 31, 2007

^60

As a student of history and a professional management consultant with a deep interest in organizational dynamics and psychology, I am endlessly fascinated at how a group, which percieves itself to be wronged in some manner, will work tirelessly for “respect” and ultimately revolution (a.k.a., “affirmation”) and yet, when they achieve that power…

… they are the first to oppress and destroy.

Sadly, in the current kulturkampf, those who wish to overturn the old order have little idea how truly good they have had it. By historical standards, Western Civilization and especially its American expression of the mid-20th Century, is an abberation.

The norm is more like the Middle East — Sharia law included.

Trek content on psychobabble and positive affirmation: “I need my pain! It’s what makes me who I am!”

67. Stanklin T. McFibberich - March 31, 2007

re: 64. Dennis Bailey
“Don’t kid yourself that there are “other forces” involved that trump the primacy of the profit motive here.”

…and that’s exactly what is wrong. Don’t kid YOURself thinking I don’t know that it is all about profit. It would be nice if that were not always the motivating force in Hollywood. Unrealistic, maybe. But nice.

So in the meantime, let’s all be excited by the types of crappy movies and TV shows that are being produced now. Sensationalism sells, so let’s embrace it.

68. Flier1701 - March 31, 2007

As a gay man, I think that NV is going about this gay episode all wrong. I remember listening to a pod cast, or reading an interview by Ronald D. Moore on “Battlestar Galactica”, and in it he said that he believed Homosexuality existed in Galactica’s universe, and yes, he wanted to have a gay character. However, by his own admission, he didn’t want to become the “gay episode”, and felt that it was nothing more than a lack of creativity on his part.

I do think there should be gay characters in Star Trek. I can’t think of a reason for there not to be. However, I agree with Ron Moore. If done, let it be in a way that’s not “the gay episode”. Personally, I would prefer if a gay character simply made mention of his boyfriend/ her girlfriend rather than have them make out on screen. In my opinion, that is how Gay rights should be treated on Star Trek.

Subtlety is a good thing. Yes, the original Trek did hit you over the head with social commentary, like on “Let that is your Last Battlefield”. However, it was more subtle than blunt. The message was always there, you just had to look to find it. Therein lays the genius of Gene Roddenberry. Kids could watch it and enjoy the action, the excitement, and the Adventure. Adults could watch the same episode and take away a deeper message. It inherently appealed to both generations on different levels.

69. Stanklin T. McFibberich - March 31, 2007

re: 68. Flier1701

Well-stated.

70. Dennis Bailey - March 31, 2007

#60: “Is it possible some of the people who are interested in the qualities Olde Timey Fan spoke of might continue to be entitled to the occasional new production that fits their needs?”

No. You’re not *entitled* to anything in the way of entertainment. It’s largely this sense of entitlement from which a number of the other errors in the thinking of a lot of the “traditionalists” flow.

I only have basic cable, yet I can’t count the number of hours of family friendly “traditional-values” entertainment that are available in a given week.

Go get it.

That the entertainment industry doesn’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and promote it, though, is a function of what people have demonstrated that they’re willing to pay to see.

71. Stanklin T. McFibberich - March 31, 2007

70:

okthen

72. MichaelJohn - March 31, 2007

The only thing I really like about these fan based shows is the attention to detail with regards to the sets, costumes and CGI effects. They have done an excellent job of recreating the feel of the original series.

But to me, the actiing is so horrible it destroys the watching experience, even if the story is good and the script well written.

As far as a gay episode and seeing photos of two men kissing…sorry I don’t care to see that! That doesn’t make me a homophobe or anti-gay, it makes me 100% heterosexual!

I would think 99% of the straight men in this world are repulsed by those images, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon, no matter how “open minded and liberal” are society becomes.

I have no problems with gays or lesbians characters being portrayed in movies and on television, but I definately don’t want to watch any episode of Trek and see a gay love scene, or two gay men kissing! Yuck!

Sorry if that makes me closed minded, but I have a right to my opinions.

Mike :o

73. T Negative - March 31, 2007

#72

I agree, good post.

74. Dennis Bailey - March 31, 2007

#72: “I would think 99% of the straight men in this world are repulsed by those images.”

I don’t care one way or another. It happens that I’m not into hockey, and I can’t say that I notice photos of guys playing hockey other than to page past them to something that does interest me.

“Repulsion” has nothing at all to do with being “100% heterosexual” or homosexual or 63.5 percent bisexual or whatever. What you’re describing is closer to what psychologists first labeled “homosexual panic” back in the 1920s.

75. Stanklin T. McFibberich - March 31, 2007

74:

“Bailey, you’re relieved!”

-The Corbomite Maneuver

76. Dennis Bailey - March 31, 2007

That’s the first time I’ve heard that joke this afternoon. :)

77. Stanklin T. McFibberich - March 31, 2007

76: Well, sometimes in the midst of conflict, it is just time to lighten up. :)

78. MichaelJohn - March 31, 2007

#74

It seems to me that any person that is not 100% supportive of all gay issues and rights, is instantly attacked and labeled as homophobic, closed minded, mean spirited, conservative, hateful Christain etc etc etc. You have just added a new one- “homosexual panic”. That’s rubbish!

Yes, in my circle of straight male friends “repulsion” is a very kind and nice way of stating how many of us feel when exposed to those images.

Anway, you’re entitled to your opinions, and I will respect them even if I totally disagree with you. But it seems I don’t get that same courtesy from the other side, when discussions and debate center on gay issues.

Mike :o

79. Xai ( tired of the pseudo-intellectual BS ) - March 31, 2007

ALL
The easy solution.

If for some reason, any reason, you don’t wish to see any of this, don’t watch it.

Simple, eh?

80. Stanklin T. McFibberich - March 31, 2007

79:

Don’t worry, I won’t be viewing any more New Voyages…one was quite enough. And by the way, Xai (is it pronounced “Zay” or “Zie” or how is it pronounced?), in case you had forgotten, I don’t want to watch Star Trek XI either. But I will be waiting for you guys to try to drag me there.

:)

81. brady - March 31, 2007

hey bailey if yall are gonna finish exeter at least update your website…i know you have a podcast….you even talk about the next film on the site but keep people up to date k.

82. billhardin22 - March 31, 2007

Anthony,

Any topic has viewpoints for and against. Unfortunately, those who have a negative viewpoint of the gay lifestyle are too often stereotyped as being “bashers”. I think this is an unfortunate and unfair choice of phrasing to describe those who do not support the gay movement.

Why is the term “bashers” not used for those who are pro-gay as well? Could it not be said by one who is not pro-gay, fairly or not, that those who are promoting the gay lifestyle often bash those who disagree with them?

To disagree with a viewpoint does not make one a “basher”. If one viewpoint can be expressed, it is only tolerant to allow the opposite to be voiced as long as it is issue-oriented. And this attitude should apply to both pro and con opinions on the gay issue or any other.

If tolerance is to be expected, It must also be given.

Stanky, Old Timey Fan, and Evil Braga, right there with you!

83. Xai - March 31, 2007

#80 Stanky
I have no problem with you staying out of XI.

Zie.

84. MichaelJohn - March 31, 2007

#82 I agree with your post. Well said

Mike :o

85. Steve Austin - March 31, 2007

i agree with the post saying that there is no point on making a ‘gay episode’ , however I alwasy thought that trek should have gay characters. But it shouldnt be the focus of an episode, just have a gay character. Like on day kirk asks a male crewman ‘how is your husband’ or something like that .

that being said I do not agree with those who seem to thing that we should ‘tolerate’ their intollerance. Iam not gay but i dont find it ‘repulsive’. In fact I just dont care about it at all. I also dont have opinioins about hockey. And i find it odd that people who are not gay have strong opinions about it and fel that the world needs to hear them

but I do think that STNV are relying too much on stunt casting and stunt topics. Plus if their goal so to make the show just like it would be i the 60s then their last episode and the way it ended is totally crazy….they would have never ended an episode thaat way. And there is no way in hell they would do a gay episode.

the right time to do this was with TNG as Cawley says….when it would have been innovative. Now it is passe

86. billhardin22 - March 31, 2007

#84 Michael John.

I meant to acknowledge you and your posts as well.

“Courtesy is for everyone”.

James T. Kirk
“Elaan of Troyius”

Hang in there, Mike!

87. MichaelJohn - March 31, 2007

#85

I find it equally odd that men that are supposedly “not gay or bisexual” have no reaction to watching men kiss or watching a gay love scene!

As I said in my earlier post, I have no problems with the portrayal of gay or lesbian characters in film or television. In fact the gay comedy “The Birdcage” with Robbin Willliams is one of my favorite movies! Regardless, I do find gay love scenes or two men kissing offensive and repulsive, and I know I’m not alone in this opinion.

I think most directors and producers in Hollywood accept this reality and that’s why very few movies will include controversial scenes of gay sex.

Unlike ST the new voyages, I’m willing to bet my paycheck that Star Trek XI will not include a scene where two men are kissing!

Mike :o

88. Reptileboy - March 31, 2007

For 20 years David Gerrold has been hyping up his script and the fact it was killed because of its use of homosexual characters. Hopefully now he can put his money where his mouth is and present the story.

I am all for gay characters in Star Trek, and indeed television in general, but I do not believe we should be dictating to the producers of Star Trek of any era to include these characters.

David Gerrold is someone who I do not particulary think of highly and I am tired of him and a number of former TOS staffers who voice their belief that they know and understand the core of what Star Trek is.

And I am tired of the producers of New Voyages who seem to bring their own views and opinions to what Star Trek should be in there own series. I do not know how many times I have watched them retcon an idea into their series. They proclaim they are fans of all of Star Trek, but I think they are trying too hard to air their own personal grievances against the franchise in their series.

And I certainly feel that the actings is in part terrible and is only further perpetuating other fan series that have decent special effects, ok production values but horrid acting. James Cawley may be in the centre seat when it comes to producing New Voyages, but he should not be in the centre seat on camera.

I respect him highly for his love of Star Trek and his continued dedication towards the franchise, but as Kirk, he is terrible. I cannot help but feel that at the point where they are, had New Voyages been about an all new crew, I would enjoy it 10 times more and feel that they had a justifiable place in Star Trek lore.

I know this seems highly negative of New Voyages, but I do respect and admire them.

89. MichaelJohn - March 31, 2007

I can’t be too critical of any fan film since it’s not costing me a thing to watch them. I realize they are all a labor of love for all those involved in each production.

Having set that, I really, really, really wish they had decided to come up with a totally new crew, instead of trying to play the original TOS characters. This way the actors could have just been themselves instead of trying to “act like” Kirk, Spock, etc.

Sadly, their decision to play the original TOS characters ruined this series for me. The episodes remind me more of a Saturday Night Live parody sketch, instead of a serious TOS episode. I know many here disagree, and some even go as far as saying the “New Voyages” should be considered part of official trek canon. To each his own!

I like to watch these fan films strictly to see the sets and special effects. Though the acting is horrible, the sets and effects are quite impressive!

Mike :o

90. yo - March 31, 2007

Re: Exeter

#50 (DB)
> those of us working on “Tressaurian Intersection” have *not* “moved on”

That is good news for Exeter fans.

> and Act Three will be released pretty soon.

Unfortunately there is no upper bound on “pretty soon”. ;-,

I’m learning that lesson with my own project.
(Suggestion for the impatient: Start working on your own projects.
If you soon see your own ‘deadlines’ slipping past … then perhaps
you won’t complain anymore about anyone else’s delays;
you’ll be too busy dealing with your own. That is, if you have a life.
If you don’t have any problems of life to get in the way, lucky you.)

#81 (Brady)

> hey bailey if yall are gonna finish exeter at least update your website…

AFAIK, Bailey maintains the forum site at http://www.unitedworlds.net
(formerly subspacebbs). StarshipExeter.com and ExeterStudio.com
are not owned by Bailey, they are owned by Jimm Johnson
(who plays Cap’n Garrovick on Exeter). You can verify this
by checking the Whois for those sites, this is public information.

So if you wanna complain about the lack of updates on
Exterstudio.com, then apparently Jimm is your man, not Dennis.
I don’t know if Dennis has been given any access to update that site.

(I have no inside information, I’m just a fan.)

91. steve-o - March 31, 2007

“I would think 99% of the straight men in this world are repulsed by those images, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon, no matter how “open minded and liberal” are society becomes.” #72

ok so basically this thread has been beaten to death but i need to get this off my chest

100% of anyone should not be repulsed by two people who are in love or attracted to one another. I am absolutley not calling anyone homophobic, but are there people in the world who are homophobic? there sure are.
I think the main problem i see here is that this is even an issue. to watch a film where people are killed in cold blood and be entertained by it, and then to watch a film where a couple may show affection towards one another and be repulsed is where i find the problem.

In the future i should hope that there will be as much attention towards gays in movies, and the real world as there are about straight people. perhaps one day everyone will just realize people loving people is not a bad thing.

92. Buckaroohawk - April 1, 2007

steve-o- (#91): James T. Kirk himself couldn’t have said it better. Nicely done.

93. MichaelJohn - April 1, 2007

#91

The point of my message was in no way an indictment against gay or lesbian characters in Star Trek, or in any other movie or television program. But as usual, anyone not supporting gay values, or in this case not applauding gay love scenes in Star Trek TNV, is automatically dismissed by those who do. Typical….

If you read all my posts in this thread, you would have understood that my point was that many people do not want to watch EXPLICIT images of gay men kissing, or in sexual explicit scenes. It’s not for you or anyone else here to decide what is or isn’t offensive to another person. If I’m a close minded, insensitive homophobe for saying this, so be it.

Also, trying to link the subject of gay love scenes with violence in movies doesn’t make any sense, and has nothing to do with what others have written in this thread. If you feel so strongly about war, violence, gore etc in movies, you have the right to reject those films and shows and not watch them. Just as I have the right to reject movies and television that contains material I find offensive and innapropriate..

In the future, I hope that those people that demand and expect acceptance of their lifestyle, morals and personal beliefs, learn to respect and accept those individuals that don’t agree with them. It’s a two way street!

Mike :o

94. brady - April 1, 2007

#90….thanks for the info..but no need for snippy ;)

95. THEETrekMaster - April 1, 2007

#72 RIGHT ON!!!!

I am so tired of having the “gay agenda” shoved down my throat. Just because THEY like things shoved down their throats doesn’t mean I do…LOL!!!

Why can’t they leave my Star Trek alone???!!!

Damn.

No offense to gays…I don’t care what you do in your own bedrooms — but I just don’t want to see it. And before you go on the hyper-defensive, that does NOT mean I “hate” you. I don’t care much for the cult of death lifestyle it engenders, but that’s YOUR choice. If you want AIDS, sure…go have gay sex (the origin of AIDS).

Hmpf…funny…kind of like the way atheists feel about Christianity…;-)

Oh…and I echo the poster who suggested the “way out sci-fi concept” of a traditional family episode! HERE! HERE!!!! (Claps)

TTM

96. THEETrekMaster - April 1, 2007

#93 — EXACTLY!!!

Great post! I have to say I am encouraged by the number of Trekkers here who do not feel compelled to go with the PC way of thinking that is such a disease in our society these days.

TTM

97. THEETrekMaster - April 1, 2007

#82 Excellent!!!!

Ahhhh….some of you here are renewing my hope of sanity returning to our culture. It shows that the media complex has not brainwashed *everyone* into following the “groupthought” that the gay lifestyle should become mainstream and embraced. I am proud to be posting here with you guys…I am getting all “verklempt”. LOL

However, having said all that I have — I want to emphasize I do not hate gays; do not think they should be persecuted in any way; physically abused. In fact, my position is pro-life in that I believe the gay lifestyle is a.) immoral, b.) CLEARLY unhealthy and c.) is a cult of death.

“C” is appropriate because this lifestyle choice does nothing to perpetuate the species and also clearly results in the deaths of millions of men and I believe, unnecessarily. Yes, heteros get AIDS too — but that is also due to morally questionable behavior in the bedroom. Sure, some get AIDS from blood transfusions…again, let’s trace the origins of that.

The lifestyle goes against the nature of God and man. It’s an abomination. Nature supports me, science supports me…and decency supports me.

TTM

98. JB - April 1, 2007

I think post #68 had it about right. If you want to show that there are homosexual crew members in the 23rd century, that’s fine, but be subtle. The best thing would be that no one in the 23rd century – or the audience – notices or cares. It’s like the salt shaker dilemma Roddenberry faced when they were filming “The Man Trap” (read “The Making of Star Trek” if you haven’t already). Roddenberry didn’t want to have a cast member stop, look at the camera and say, “See? This is a salt shaker” just so the audience would know it was a 23rd century salt shaker. He took the same approach with all of the technology – you don’t stop to explain it, you just take it in stride, because to you it’s part of the background and second nature.

99. Dennis Bailey - April 1, 2007

#81: “hey bailey if yall are gonna finish exeter at least update your website…i know you have a podcast….you even talk about the next film on the site but keep people up to date k.”

Well, I’d agree with you. I’m afraid I don’t have anything to do with updating the website.

We do have some forums at http://www.unitedworlds.net – the folks working on the show frequent them, and when there’s any news that we can talk about it shows up there.

100. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - April 1, 2007

Lord garth Still prefers Starship Exeter. Don’t care one way or the other about New Voyages gay episode. Exeter is a much better product without the benefit of big guest star in the rapid aging/temporal aging gimmick subplot or professional filmakers lending a hand or gay cheescake pictures or whatever. Exeter makes Star Trek. Real honest to god TOS in tone Star Trek. With much better effects (before Daren apparently showed up to save their bacon) equally impressive sets and minitures and as I said earlier you care about the characters and buy their performance. So for the love of god will you guys please finish Tressurian!!!! If you need more money just ask, Trek fans have deep pockets and we are generous. We waste more money on crap at conventions than any other fanbase save Star Wars. Dennis you are the point man can’t they even update their website to let us know if they need help or where things stand???

101. steve-o - April 1, 2007

“The point of my message was in no way an indictment against gay or lesbian characters in Star Trek, or in any other movie or television program. But as usual, anyone not supporting gay values, or in this case not applauding gay love scenes in Star Trek TNV, is automatically dismissed by those who do. Typical….” #93

“I am so tired of having the “gay agenda” shoved down my throat. Just because THEY like things shoved down their throats doesn’t mean I do…LOL!!!” #95

please re-read what i wrote. nothing i said in anyway dismissed you for not being supportive of gays. as i stated “I am absolutley not calling anyone homophobic.”
i do however find that no matter how i could have made a statement positive for all, and nonoffensive to anyone- someone will still find a way to nitpick and make what i said as an attack.. you must understand that no one is trying to shove any “gay agenda” into your face. i dont know if this makes sense but i feel like you shove a “gay agenda” into your own face.

#95 -
basically you should be embarassed… folks this is yet again another example of how people can not be mature and talk about a serious situation.

102. Trek Star - April 1, 2007

I’m so glad New Voyages is doing a “gay” episode. We need to put an end to the homophobic riots in the streets against gays we’ve seen in the last 30 years. I don’t know how many times gays have been told to get out of line in the airport, the stores, the theaters and in other public venues to wait for straights first. I’m sick of seeing this in our free society. The beatings, physical and psychological, the abuse they have had to endure at the behest of all those who don’t believe in this virtuous lifestyle.

The not too subtle discrimatory behavior in the workplace, in the schools and in the government. Gays don’t get the same pay as straights, they don’t get the same medical care or the same basic rights in this country as those who are not gay. They face anti-gay bias in hiring practices in every type of job. To make up for the years of discrimination they have had to endure we should give gays the right to sue those who make any statement against them in the slightest manner, we need to demonstrate to them that we now accept and believe their sexuality is as normal as any other lifestyle.

Star Trek should be overtly and covertly used to combat this epidemic vehement hatred against gays. A gay person has to deal with this every single day of their lives. As someone said above, it’s just love, the same as a man and women being together. To criticize being gay is the same thing as racists who would say a black doesn’t belong with a white, as most people believed during the time of the original series. Civil Rights and Gay Rights are the same thing, there is no difference. None! To condemn this behavior is akin to one who would wear a hood over their head and hate anyone of a different color.

So open up your minds and accept what surely, will be the norm in greater numbers by the 23rd century. Technology has even rendered man and women obsolete for creating offspring…. There is not ONE good argument against bringing homosexuals into fiction as they are everywhere in society. They have always been a part of all societies historically, that alone should show us that this behavior is just part of the “human condition”.

Star Trek can be used to reflect what we know to be true and it can educate us as to the proper behavior we should have toward any group of people. Gays have always been around, but the shame in declaring these desires was the invention of those homophobic hypocrites who have suppressed those whose behavior was simply just… different. There is no inherent shame in this lifestyle. It’s simple fear, ignorance and prejudice by straights that have kept gays in the shadows for so many long years.

If man is to advance and reach the stars, gays must be given more then equal protection from people who would critize, bash and condemn them. I, for one, applaud this single effort to normalize physical love between two men.

It’s just something else that humans do, you see….. :)

103. THEETrekMaster - April 1, 2007

“Homophobic riots”???

What country are YOU living in?

All I see are pro-gay parades/marches designed to promote that lifestyle and they go pretty much unincumbered. Plus, I see endless TV series promting the lifestyle and trying to make it mainstream.

The persecution of gays is all in you guys minds.

Go to a country like Iran and then come back and tell me what they had to say about your “gayness”.

You would have your head cut off.

Now that’s persecution!

TTM

104. THEETrekMaster - April 1, 2007

“Homophobic riots”???

What country are YOU living in?

All I see are pro-gay parades/marches designed to promote that lifestyle and they go pretty much unincumbered. Plus, I see endless TV series promting the lifestyle and trying to make it mainstream.

The persecution of gays is all in you guys minds.

Go to a country like Iran and then come back and tell me what they had to say about your “gayness”.

You would have your head cut off.

Now that’s persecution!

Humans do all kinds of abberant things…pedophilia, beastiality…mass murder…serial killing…

Should we start promoting those “lifestyle choices” as well?

TTM

105. steve-o - April 1, 2007

103#-
clearly you missed where he was showing a bit of sarcasm however alot of it is true.
gays are denied many rights that are given to heterosexual couples. gays also risk losing there job if they live in a state that does not protect the agianst discrimination based on sexual orientation. not only that but many do have to live in an environment that where they are at risk of being victim to hate crimes. the point is: it is all stupid. it shouldnt matter who you love. quite frankly i have been suprised by alot of the responses fellow trek fans have given about this topic… i always thought of star trek fans as being open minded and ahead of our time..

106. steve-o - April 1, 2007

ps. there is an amazing difference between disgusting people taking advantage of and raping children and animals, and peaceful people who are consenting adults that love eachother and just want to live as equals.

perhaps before you make yourself look like any more of a jack you should do some research from organizations that take a neutral stand on the topic.

107. MichaelJohn - April 1, 2007

So Steve-O, I could then assume that you don’t have any problems with polygamous marriages either. After all, they are just consenting adults that love each other and are committed to their type of marriage and lifestyle.

In fact what’s wrong with a man having five wives, or a woman three husbands? How about two close swinging couples that have deep love and affection for each other and want to live peacefully together as men and wives? What happens in their private bedrooms is no business of ours anyway, right?

Should all these alternative living arrangements be accepted and considered wonderful and mainstreem, because they are “peaceful people just wanting to love each other”?

In my opinion, if we are to accept gay unions, then we have to accept all other unions between consenting ADULTS too. If not then we are just supporting certain alternative lifestyles and discriminating against others. The pro-gay camp really hates that arguement!

For me the bottom line is this- I want my Trek to be neither pro gay nor anti gay..the whole subject is just too controversial and devisive. Since these new voyages writers have decided to cross that line and be overtly pro-gay, I have no desire or reason to watch their episodes anymore.

It’s not a big deal, it’s just my choice….

Mike :o

108. Dennis Bailey - April 1, 2007

#104: “What country are YOU living in?”

The one that Matthew Sheppard lived in, I’d guess. It’s called “the United States of America” and thank gods for the fact that, whatever its shortcomings, it has a form of government that empowers people to organize and to put an eventual end to the destructive effects of the kind of bigotry displayed by quite a few homophobes in this topic. ;)

109. THEETrekMaster - April 1, 2007

#108 Rejected. Isolated incident…not a paradigm.

Now, again…go to Iran and come back and talk to me about true bigotry.

You don’t even know what that is…quit playing the “victim”. Nobody is crying for you.

110. THEETrekMaster - April 1, 2007

“In my opinion, if we are to accept gay unions, then we have to accept all other unions between consenting ADULTS too. If not then we are just supporting certain alternative lifestyles and discriminating against others. The pro-gay camp really hates that arguement!”

Exactly. Animals, dead people…whatever deviant behavior…it should all be on the table, right?

You’re right…they don’t like that argument because it makes them uncomfortable. They know that “acceptance of the gay lifestyle” is just the doorway to even weirder and more perverse behavior becomeing “mainstream”.

People cutting their gonads off to become something they aren’t…that’s just SICK!!! And that’s part of what some people in this country expect us to accept.

I make no apologies…I refuse to accept such deviancy! If that offends anyone, then they should take a GOOD LONG SERIOUS look in the mirror.

Sickos!!!

The line must be drawn HERE! This far and NO farther!!!

TTM

111. Dennis Bailey - April 1, 2007

#109: “#108 Rejected.”

It’s not your call. Nice try.

No matter how much you rant, American society continues to move in the direction of greater openess and fairness for people of varying backgrounds and sexual orientations. Trying to dress bigotry and fear up as “maintaining traditional morality” or as the right to personal standards – as members of the KKK would have considered their preferences to be – is not even slowing things down all that much at this point, thank gods.

Bottom line is, if you want to be “not exposed” to ideas and ways of life you don’t like you’ll need to find an island elsewhere. This ain’t the place it’s going to happen for you. :)

112. MichaelJohn - April 1, 2007

My comparison was to unions between consenting adults.

By comparing adult relationship to those involving minors or beastiality just further inflames this debate, and is neither a valid comparison or fair.

I understand your strong opinions and beliefs, but I think you’re letting your emotions get the best of you on this thread.

I wish no gay Star Treks any harm or ill will, I simply don’t support or agree with their lifestyle. The fact that I don’t doesn’t automatically make me a homophobe either!

Mike :o

113. steve-o - April 1, 2007

MichaelJohn-
you say you are not a homophobic person and yet you relate gay marriage to that of people who make choices to be with multiple partners… I guess I could go on about how Homosexuality is not a choice and is related to biological factors but god knows im not in the mood to hear you(or others) beat that into the ground. I guess the main point is eventually gays will be given the same rights as everyother human- it is just a matter of time.

ah P.s.- you said something about people having sex changes… i would go back and read what it was but i have had my fill of b.s. today… so i will simply say i hope you realize that transexuals are not gay people it is a whole different complex category of it’s own… it’s like talking about apples, and onions

114. The Lord is Not Garth - April 1, 2007

I preface this comment by saying I am not here to debate. I will read no responses to this so whatever you have to say will go unseen by me. Rant away.

Every great society in history has destroyed itself from within and made defeat from without possible. Star Trek is about a glorious future where we fix the social ills that threaten that future.

Our species was created to work reproductively in one way only. To do otherwise is an abomination to the Lord.

Gays in Star Trek? Not in my house.

115. OTV - April 1, 2007

Ykno i think you guys are actually getting it all wrong… just cus so far promotionally its seen as “The Gay Episode” the article clear states that its a normal relationship as any other. There is probably a strong Plot A were missing here and from wat i know its a scifi adventure horror. Just cus these guys are gay doesnt necessarily say “THESE GUYS ARE GAY! WATCH IT!!!!”

I mean come on… when Rejoined aired wasnt it labelled as a Lesbian episode up till the moment it actually aired and when it did air it wasnt quite that at all. So how it gods name do we know this is going to be the same?? we dont… it hasnt even been filmed yet and we’re all just presuming from god damn poster art and images that tease us.

For gods sake this is the 21st century… are we really saying that this sort of thing is still touchy… my god.

You know i give up. I’m one of those guys wholl reserve judgment till i actually see something on my screen just as i will Star Trek XI.

Until October/November or whenever the ep is released thats when ill give my opinions.

116. OTV - April 1, 2007

NB. Correction…

Doesnt necessarily say… These Guys Are Gay and This Is Our Episodes Focal Point

117. Big Bill Cox - April 1, 2007

No disrespect to the makers of New Voyages (I think they do a marvelous job, all things considered), but I prefer the Starship Exeter films. They capture the spirit of TOS better in my opinion. I wish we would get more from them.

118. OTV - April 1, 2007

i dunno… i think its like Cawley says in their article that the VFX were done by guys who made it modern but now their new team knows exactly how to make it look and with Dochterman onboard i think the feeling of TOS is going to be there now.

119. MichaelJohn - April 1, 2007

#113

I said nothing at all about sex changes in any of my threads. Please get your facts straight!

My comments were simply in response to what you posted and I quote…”peaceful people who are consenting adults that love each other and just want to live as equals”

Should not peace loving Mormons that just want to follow the tenants of fundamental Mormonism also be allowed the same right to marry? Why bring up the subject of biology now when the real subject here is discrimination?

To me if you are for gay marriage then you must equally be for other forms of marriage, as long as they are consensual, and do not involve minors. If not, you are just picking and choosing which groups you choose to support and which you choose to discriminate against. How is that right?

If gays are being discrimated against because they are not be allowed to legally marry etc, so are Mormons, and Muslim men that want to have more than one wife legally. But I guess what you are saying is that civil unions based on biology should be more accepted than those based on religious convictions, or personal choice. Sorry I don’t buy that arguement.

It seems to me that many gays and lesbians that want the right to marry, would quickly deny these very same rights to others that don’t base their desire to form unions on biology. Why is one reason ok, and the others not?

If your point was that any consenting ADULT should be allowed to form any mutually agreed upon union with another or others, be it gay, lesbian, polygamy etc, then I would respect that view, but disagree with it completely. But you seem to be saying that gays are a special case and should not be compared to other individuals that also desire to be in non conventional unions.

To fight for gay rights, but not equally support the rights of all consenting adults to form whatever type of civil union or marriage they desire, is blatant HYPOCRISY in my opinion.

Mike :o

120. Anthony Pascale - April 1, 2007

i am disappointed to see where this thread has gone…i am closing it down

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.