Chris Pine Named Top 10 Hunk December 2, 2008
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Celebrity, ST09 Cast , trackback
With all the attention on the original Kirk, William Shatner, we haven’t forgotten the new one, and neither has Entertainment Tonight, who has named Chris Pine as one of their Top 10 Hunks of 2008. See the video below.
VIDEO: Pine officially a ‘hunk’
But it isn’t all glitz for the new Kirk, last week for Thanksgiving, Chris Pine volunteered at the Los Angeles Mission. Pics at JustJared.
Pine gives back
Loading ...
Comments»
Go Chris good job!! You will definately fit the role of Kirk.
His doing charity work is very Shatner like. And like Shatner back on TOS he isn’t hard on the eyes.
yeah, that sure does help. Kirk has to be at least somewhat of a pimp to get as much space ass as he does.
I think they should keep that Rock soundtrack behind Pine for the real movie.
I wonder if Pine’s looks will draw any more women than would normally go to a Star Trek movie — i.e. non-’geek’ women (please note the quotes). Something tells me the answer is “No”. On the other hand, this isn’t a typical Star Trek movie, and that may be more significant than any one actor’s looks or buzz. It can’t hurt, however, if Pine is officially a ‘hunk’ — any more than Zoe Saldana being considered a ‘hottie’ (though she doesn’t do anything for me personally).
Zoë Saldana is stunning! She probably just hasn’t had as much media exposure as Chris Pine has the past while, that’s all. Give it time!
Actually, marketing Trek based on the guys is a pretty good idea. If they try to sell the movie based on Ms. Saldana’s looks, it may come off like they are trying to sell another Seven of Nine or T’pol to the fanboys and seriously turn people off.
On the other hand, you tell girls around the world that Kirk is being played by the next Brad Pitt…
ET is produced by Paramount..otherwise this would be a suprise..Good luck Chris!
Chris Pine seems to have a rapidly building and ardent fan base and I think this movie will propel him over the top in popularity. It is nice to see he takes the time to help others, as this is not the first time i have seen his name associated with charity events.
With his looks and the characteristics he hopefully will bring out as JTK…. well imo it has the potential to create a real draw for this movie…. Just as JJ and team intended.
Pine looks kinda like Shatner by way of Brad Pitt and James Marsden (cyclops)
plus a little matt damon too
I can say that Pine is MOST DEFINITELY a hunk. If his acting is as suburb as he looks, he’ll have earned himself a place on my Top 10. Maybe even Top 5?
Denise, where are you?!
Detroit Tigers fan. Good man.
THE ORION WOMEN!!
=A=
#12 – I actually think his acting is a bit urban. LOL
Forget Pine
I think Pine is seriously hot-fit and cute. I’m keen to see if he’s a decent actor; I’ve not seen him in anything else, but the reports on his Trek performance are all pretty positive.
Pine can potentially bring in a lot of women and gay men, which is good thing. As a gay man, I did find T’Pol and 7-of-9 a bit off-putting (albeit inan ‘oh my god, those boobs are hilarious’ kind of way) – Trip Tucker was a really nice looking guy, but a bit of boy-crumpet in the form of Pine is welcome.
Now an actual gay character….. come on JJ, put one in the next film please rather than some dumb TNG metaphor involving aliens and acceptance and so on.
Ucdom,
THANK YOU! Trek needs a gay character. And, as a qualifier, a gay character that is not wearing red. I would like one that lives longer than 5 minutes, only to be dispatched as another “Ensign Ricky.”
14. Dammit Jim! He’s a Pine not an Urban!
Meh. Quinto is way, way, way, astronomically hotter.
19,
Howzabout we throw Quinto and Pine into a room and see what happens?
Hopefully, fanfictions.
Wow in this video Pine kinda came off a bit like Matt Damon looks-wise. Maybe Damon’s casting wasn’t too far off?
@16
Yeah, it’d be nice if JJ were the one to put an out gay character in Trek, if only because we’ve been waiting so freaking long for it. There was Tom in Lost, but, like poor Ensign Ricky, he’s dead now. So who knows?
@20
Haha, totally. I can’t wait.
I am pleased by the fact that even if this movie is a total flop, Quinto and Pine will (hopefully) be eye-candy enough to keep me watching. Gah, they are both so darn cute.
re: 16. ucdom
“I think Pine is seriously hot-fit and cute” — Amen to that brother!
Most of all of my non-trek fan girl buddies are planning on seeing this movie because of Quinto and Pine.
re: 21. The A-Man – December 3, 2008
Wow in this video Pine kinda came off a bit like Matt Damon looks-wise. Maybe Damon’s casting wasn’t too far off?
—————————————
Yeah, def… Makes me wonder what the hype would be like right now if Damon really was cast as Kirk (as rumored back in ‘07)
#16 ucdom-
Term of the day: “boy-crumpet.”
Thanks.
Now I’ll never be able to think of him as Kirk!!
This is a good thing for Star Trek, since it’ll boost attendance for the movie. Maybe even bring in the coveted younger demographic to fandom.
Bodes well for the future. Now the sales pitch is working, lets see if the product can deliver well enough for sequels.
I am afraid I have never heard the term “boy-crumpet”. Is this merely because I live in a hollow log?
I appreciate the gay audience wanting their ‘time in the sun’, so to speak, and I have nothing against gay people, but why, in fact, does Trek need a gay character? It’s been doing pretty well for 42 years, hasn’t it? How is a gay character going to make it better?
OK, I guess this isn’t the place for this type of conversation…
Let’s hope that Pine doesn’t “Twilight”-ify Star Trek.
# 28 because of IDIC
That’s why. =)
@5
I actually showed the trailer to a couple of female friends, 1 who has no knowledge of Trek, and 1 who finds it actively nerdy. They are both counting down the days to the movie now, and I keep hearing things like “Captain Kirk is sexy!”
Chris Pine in underpants in the trailer = instant female fans.
How is he a Hunk ? No one has seen his performance yet.
But for the Record I think the new movie is going to be good.
#13
you’re darn right. glad to know Captain Kirk is a TIger fan!! Go TIgers, Go Trek!
Does anyone remember Chris Pine in that Lindsay Lohan bomb? The movie where she has really bad luck because Pine inherited all of her former good luck. Terrible. But Pine still looks like a solid actor in the new movie…
31. The Man from Saskatoon
Female fans aren’t the only ones who appreciate seeing Pine in his underpants, lol…
28. richpit
In keeping up with the diversity rhetoric, I think it would just be another step in accurately portraying the diversity that exists in life. Obviously, we don’t expect every variation of IDIC to be portrayed, but I think it’s fair to say that gay people have become and are becoming increasingly visible in social life and are one of those groups that are beginning to seem, I guess, missing. My two cents.
28 — I completely agree with you.
29 — No way! I can’t stand Robert Pattinson! On the other hand, Chris Pine is really hott.
I agree Pine is a hottie and to answer the question someone asked about a gay character is the fact that Gene was going to put a gay character in one of the treke serieses but it never happened do to the pressure of hollywood sort of speaking! I think if they did i hope it would be tastefully done .
#5…to answer ur question…actress megan fox is a trek fan, and moreover i know a very sexy non-geek woman in the mtv demographic who said she’ll definitely be going lol trust me this film is gonna bring all the closet trekkers outta the woodwork and you’ll be surprised who they’ll be
There’s a definite absence of gay characters in sci-fi. That’s why it was pretty bold for the Battlestar Galactica writing team to make Admiral Cain’s character (Michelle Forbes) a lesbian. It wasn’t explicitly stated and there were no love scenes. But it was obvious, it was organic and natural — it was appropriate for Michelle’s character. I suspect that most people involved in Trek, either in front of or behind the camera, have been pushing for a gay character for years. But it shouldn’t be a “token” gay character, there shouldn’t be a gay character just for the sake of having a gay character. That would be condescending to the gay community.
But to be realistic, I think Paramount has always viewed Trek as being something “family-friendly.” Let’s face it, most of us life-long Trekkies grew up watching it. I know I did. Maybe that’s why certain kinds of characters haven’t cropped up.
Just watched that video up there from ET. There are so many reasons to despise Entertainment Tonight. Uuuuugggghhhh.
26. OneBuckFilms
I really believe that JJ’s Star Trek will be very popular among all the non-fans/general audiences….
A few instances lead me to believe:
1. my 17yo brother (non-trek fan) was showing the preview to 6 of his friends over the weekend on the XBox… They were swearing up and down on how good it looks and that they’ll definitily be going to the movies to see it.
2. A few of my best girl pals (also die-hard non-trekers…to the point of revulsion of the thought of star trek) saw the trailer at the movie theatres and are talking about it. comments like: “it’s about time” and “If ST looked like this in the past, I would be a fan”
People are really digging the new look and feel of Star Trek…. This may very well be its revival to mainstream.
Just my thoughts of course…. :)
Re: A gay character in Trek
The only way to identify a gay character would be to show him actively being gay.
If you take all of televised Trek since TNG came on, there is almost no evidence of sex at all beyond couples who had babies, and Trip Tucker and T’Pol.
So take your pick: Hoshi is gay. Or Seven. Harry. Jonathan Archer (for sure). Janeway is bi.
Showing gay characters was the rage in the ’90s. Sex and the the City, Will and Grace, etc. have done it. Hell. “Soap” did it with Billy Crystal decades earlier. Trek would hardly be controversial doing it now.
Oh, if I were 20 years younger….sigh.
Man, he’s easy on the eyes.
#43: Tasha Yarr and Data had sex! In season one the Enterprise visited that planet where all the people had sex all day long (”Justice”), Riker and Ro hooked up in the ep “Conundrum,” Troi hooked up with that diplomat in the third season where they negotiate for the rights to that stable wormhole and they’re in bed massaging each other and stuff — and that’s just the stuff off the top of my head. So sex wasn’t just for procreation on TNG.
AJ, your comments are quite broad and generalized and I’m almost sure every single one of those characters had a heterosexual sexual relationship of some kind even if they only commented on it. Other than your own humorous inferences, there is no on-screen evidence for your judgments.
But your point is well taken. Sexuality is the only defining difference between gay and straight. It’s not like you can just have a character who loves 20th century musical theatre and goes around singing songs from them to suggest he’s gay. Therefore an on-screen depiction of a character’s relationship would be a requirement to define that character as gay. In order to meaningfully include such a character exposition, the character would have to be featured in such a way the relationship was important. Since these movies tend to be jam-packed with primary character stories, it is highly unlikely we’ll ever see it. Remember Scotty’s nephew’s death being cut from STII? I remember seeing this in the director’s cut thinking, what a shame it had been cut from the commercial release. It’s one thing to have a gay character on a TV series where you have ample time to explore it, but another to fit it into a major film and not have it be some kind of social stereotype shoe-horned in on principle. Ensign Hawk was such a rumored character from First Contact. To this day I have a very hard time trying to figure out how they would have shown him to be gay. As far as I’ concerned he could still be as there is no evidence to the contrary.
I wonder if he met Edith Keeler at that LA Mission? Seeing the new Captain in the plaid shirt reminded me of “City on the Edge of Forever”.
If you want gay Trek characters, check out Hidden Frontier. They’re all over the place.
RD:
You got the point of my post entirely.
If a character is gay, we need not know he/she is gay unless it’s relevant to the plot. In Star Trek, a character cannot act like Liberace to imply he/she is gay. The character’s sexuality is thus up for grabs.
What irks me is that, since TNG, Trek always throws a group of remarkable characters onto ships or space stations, but they have to leave their genitals at the door. The characters then become “wooden” and unrealistic. Asexual.
What a story it would have been if 7 of 9 got laid instead of hearing the endless ministrations of the holographic doctor. What if Janeway had had a secret affair with a young Ensign? Maybe Sisko picked up a girl at Quark’s, or Picard actually screwed Dr. Crusher. If Trek were real, we’d expect it to happen. It didn’t.
Your references to Peter Preston and Ensign Hawk are spot-on. Trek would be hard-pressed to throw in a gay character unless his orientation were key to the story. “New Voyages” is about to do a fanfic attempt based on an old David Gerrold script. But unless he has an arrow with the word “gay” next to it pointing at the gay characters, I don’t see how it will be relevant.
How is a gay character going to make it better?
——————————————–
Well not to stray from topic, but i could have really done with a gay role model in TNG when i was growing up, it was quite hushed up about quite often i felt isolated seeing the norm of straight couples on screen.
Despite Trek being diverse and pushing boundaries they rarely touched on this demographic.
And so it begins.
Welcome to your post Trek life Chris! Enjoy it!
….and the adventure continues…
I’ll take whatever he’s serving. That’s the hottest volunteer I’ve ever seen.
-a guy
52. 8of12
LOL!
Gay Characters:
There’s always a fine balance between commenting on our times and preaching about them.
If a Gay character is part of the plot, it might be handled this way.
A Gay couple is established on the ship as characters in the story. Some dramatic interaction on one possibly getting promoted off the ship maybe? Something legitimate that would show their personal lives.
One partner would be sent on an away mission, while the other is on the bridge, watching the events on the viewer, or listening in on the communications.
The partner on the Away Mission is KIA, and the audience feels it more, because they “know” him/her, and can see the reaction of the other partner.
Part of the plot, it would work. But it can’t appear to be thrown in for the sake of it.
#54—-The problem is that, unlike with Nichelle Nichols character in TOS, it would be difficult to make such a statement without it seemingly being shoved in the face of the audience. While Uhura’s mere presence as an officer on the bridge of the Enterprise was a social statement in itself, how do you go about depicting a “gay” character in a strong role without going out of your way to acknowledge that he/she is not heterosexual (obviously something which would likely not even matter to anyone)?
One of the things which made the character of Uhura so fantastic in the 1960’s was the fact that no one (aside from the image of a man from the 19th Century) ever mentioned that she was any different from everyone else. She was just there doing her job. It wasn’t an issue that she was of African descent.
I think you can ‘assume’ that some of Starfleet’s finest are homosexuals.
Star Trek’s best social commentary was very subtle. It wasn’t contrived, and did not come off as “trying too hard”.
“Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” was an example of “trying too hard.”
As a result, it is a poor episode, IMO.
I interrupt this programming with a non sequitur:
What the HECK is going in with Robert Pattinson’s hair? I’m really worried about that boy.
I find it interesting he was picked..he is a relative unknown…with little exposure compared to the others listed…(of course that won’t be the case in the future..) but I have a theory…Paramount owns Star Trek…they also produce and distribute ET…….just sayin’…maybe a a strong suggestion to include him on th elist so as to generate curiosity with the general female population? Not judging or saying it’s good or bad…just a thought…
57. That’s most likely the case. It might even be why they didn’t bother to mention Chris Pine’s other work, such as the relatively recent Bottle Shock, or Smokin Aces. They might want to make it seem like Trek has made Pine an overnight success.
Man, I opened a whole bum-fest on the gay issue there. And, yes, I invented ‘boy-crumpet’. Crumpet is a Brit term for ‘totty’ or a fit ‘lady’.
I think #42 made a fair point about how you’d know the character was gay. I have to admit I do NOT want Priscilla Queen of the Desert, and neither do I want Captain f***ing Jack off Torchwood; that whole show is just gayed up way too much. Even I just wanted to punch him.
In terms of showing a gay relationship – that would be good. We had Riker and Troi for god knows how long, so fair’s fair. And there was all sorts of open sexual tension around T’Pol, 7-of-9, Ilia….. and so on. But I agree that it mustn’t be gimmicky,or blatant, just…natural. I don’tknow what to say about Trek being a family show. I agree that a gay charactercould being upsome awkwardquestions (oreven sow confusion inyoungpeople’sminds),but it might also help others. Idon’t know, I found the process of growing up and discovering my sexuality so difficult and confusing, that anything might have helped. Fantasising about Wesley Crusher only gets you so far.
Actually I think this is just a way for me to displace my sense of abject loneliness at failing to find a boyfriend my whole bloody life. Although my last comment above might explain it….
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
Two weeks ago…
They should make Trek gay characters more like ‘OZ’ made their gay characters. Lots of really brutal, painful looking sex with some humiliation thrown in. Just a suggestion….
61. cw
Oh yes – Klingon Rough sex!
Look, not to sound like a jerk or anything, why do people always argue that Trek needs a gay character, just because. I mean, if it made sense to the story that’s one thing, but to just throw one in because it hasn’t been done is a little much, don’t you think? What’s the point?
Just the fact of a gay crew member is the point – you don’t need a story revolving around the character.
Speaking of which – Michael Johnson, the Helmsman on the Kelvin, would have been a great choice for a character who just happens to be gay – but he probably dies in the movie anyway. Actually, it would have been great if Richard Robau, the Captain had been gay.
I need a gay captain to say (with his hand on his hip), “Set phasers to STUNNING, darling”
In my head anyway.
I need to see a Galactic Circuit party in the shuttle bay hanger deck.
#49 – I think the reason none of the situations you mentioned happened (or could happen) is because Star Trek in all it’s incarnations is Sci-Fi/Drama, not a Soap Opera. My personal opinion is that Star Trek is a better show for the fact that it didn’t feature weekly trips down “whose sleeping with who” lane. Leave that for the Days of Our Lives and Desperate Housewives.
And really, that sums up my thoughts on the gay issue as well. I thought Trek was best when the story lines were about exploration and working relationships – not necessarily those behind closed doors. I’m not denying that heterosexual relationships were certainly displayed (if not thoroughly explored) throughout the series, but I’m also saying that I don’t think that those episodes or situations were necessarily the “Best of Trek”. In fact, if you look at most of the lists of the best Star Trek episodes, most rarely have any major “hooking up” moments or heterosexual relationship -based storylines. The Trouble With Tribbles, Best of Both Worlds, Trials and Tribblations, and Year of Hell are all judged as some of the best episodes from the various series. Almost all of them are straight, good-ol, Sci-Fi Drama sans the Soap Opera junk. So, really, I don’t think that Trek would be any better with more heterosexual OR homosexual characters. Just give me some good storylines, some actions, and a little humor and I’m good to go.
68. “…good storylines…” – of course – but interesting character development is always good. At the beginning of Voyager – Janeway is torn at having to leave her husband. It could just as easily have been her Wife – or you could have done something similar with any character. There is no good reason not to have a gay character.
69. All I’m saying is, as in your example of Janeway, her storyline of leaving her fiance back on Earth, I didn’t feel it was a necessary story line to establish that relationship. Even more so, her relationship with Chacotay got even more out of hand, confusing, and just empty by the end of the series. To me, the episodes focusing on her love interests with Chacotay or whatever alien may have tried to seduce her, were not the best episodes. I’m not trying to say that the “gay character” needs to be left out, I’m just simply making the point that I don’t think that we need another crazy fleshed out love/lust relationship fleshed out to the point of insanity. Trek just needs to focus on what makes it interesting, which to me is exploring the universe, not necessary the insides of the crew cabins at night. I’m all for interesting characters, regardless of orientation.
#61—-Lmao.
Are you suggesting that, in lieu of ‘credits’, Uhura should trade Chekov to Cyrano Jones for a tribble? Perhaps he, in turn, could trade him to Koloth’s senior officers for protection? Cigarettes?
#64—-”Just the fact of a gay crew member is the point – you don’t need a story revolving around the character.”
But once again, how do you acknowledge his/her sexual preference without going out of your way to do so?
Uhura’s presence as an officer on the bridge of the Enterprise was a social statement which required no dialogue or action indicating that she was any different from anyone else.
How could a member of Starfleet’s sexual orientation ever be relevant to anything in a Star Trek episode or film?
It isn’t as if homosexuals are people visually easy to identify in a work environment such as a starship, so exploring the issue (a little late, IMO, to be groundbreaking anyway) would seem to require some contrived scenario that hints at a same-sex relationship.
I think Star Trek’s best social commentary has been that which did not require ramming an issue down the throat of the audience…when it “tried too hard”, the show suffered.
Homosexuality will no doubt be a non-issue by the time of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy…I think people should just assume that some members of Starfleet are likely to be attracted to people of the same gender.
I don’t see how declaring that a Star Trek character is gay wouldn’t come off as contrived and unnecessary, no matter how it is done. IMO, it would be just like any other show that tries too hard to be ‘hip’ and enlightened.
Berman Trek did deal subtly with the issue in DS9.
No one was concerned with the fact that the Trill female was becoming involved with another female, only that she was becoming involved with the former love of a previous host.
Star Trek declared its position right there, IMO. Homosexual acts are non-issues in the 24th Century, period. There is no stigma…It is not taboo…
We do not need to see the male helmsman and male navigator kissing in the turbolift and being caught by Dr. McCoy to get that message across—-so what’s the point?
What will seeing Nurse Chapel and Uhura attending the same-sex marriage ceremony of Mr. Kyle and Crewman Darnell add to that message?
I am not anti-gay, but I don’t really think the presence or absence of gay characters in Trek is an issue, because (as others have mentioned) minus the sex, how would you know the character was gay? I know several people who – had they not informed me – I would never have known they were gay.
I wonder: are some people suggesting that, if, for example, the character of Chekov was intended to be a gay character, we would have to have some line or situation in the story where Chekov informs the audience he is gay? Should there be other lines where people announce they are _________ (fill in the blank), just so that everyone knows he/she is _________ (fill in the blank)?
We live in a reductionist world where everything and everyone has to be defined down to its core. I think this is nonsense. Humanity is one species, the way dogs or cats are one species. No other species takes its sense of individuality as seriously as humans do… which does not, in any way, make humans superior… just watch the news….
72. P Technobabble
So basically, your sentiments can be summed up by saying, “You’re unique…just like everybody else.”
ET- Owned and syndicated by Paramount.
Star Trek- owned & syndicated by Paramount.
Let’s wait and see who else annonints Pine as a ‘Top 10 Hunk’.
“Blood and Fire Part 1″ is coming out on DEC 20th starring Denise Crosby and Bill Blair
You will see how GAY characters are done tastefully to enhance the story and move the plot and how it is viewed as any other couple…in the 24th century…
It gave me no more concern as when I fool around wih my wife when Im in a playfully saucy mood
It could have been any 2 crew on the ship man or woman but it was these two
Tony
Star Trek Phase II
http://www.doorq.com/Blog.aspx?b=2065
Here is more on the issue along with a Family Photo
73 Shawn
I don’t necessarily need to feel or be unique. I think that is a completely subjective point of view. Does any other species on earth contemplate its “unique-ness?” Man does so entirely on the basis of a developed frontal lobe. That may make human beings unique as compared to other species, but otherwise all human beings are human beings…
I like how this list consists of actors who are all in upcoming Paramount releases, and compiled onto a Paramount produced entertainment show. I love Hollywood propaganda.
#74—-”Let’s wait and see who else annonints Pine as a ‘Top 10 Hunk’.”
My wife and niece certainly have.
#78—-”I like how this list consists of actors who are all in upcoming Paramount releases, and compiled onto a Paramount produced entertainment show. I love Hollywood propaganda.”
Last time I checked, Tony Romo had nothing to do with Paramount…Did I miss something? Did Jerry Jones suddenly buy the studio?
72 P Technobabble
“Should there be other lines where people announce they are _________ (fill in the blank), just so that everyone knows he/she is _________ (fill in the blank)?”
You mean, like this?
“Don’t tell me, you’re from outer space.”
“No, I’m from Iowa, I only work in outer space.”
As you can see, we already do this, and it’s called fleshing out the character. Except, for some reason, when it’s Kirk declaring he’s an Iowan, it’s a non-issue. This is part of the problem. Announcing a character’s sexuality in an offhand manner should similarly be considered a non-issue: instead, it is “in your face” and “unnecessary”.
I don’t need characters saying “GUESS WHAT BRIDGE CREW?! I’M GAY!” I want a line like “Lieutenant Smith, I heard your brother got married. Give him and his husband my congratulations.” Or, (female character walks into briefing) “Sorry, I’m late, Sir, I was playing nurse-maid to Elise.”
I don’t need scenes of wild, passionate sex, or long soap-opera eye gazing. I want to see extras of the same gender holding hands in a background shot. Something to suggest that society, while perhaps still heterosexually normative, has no problem with alternative sexuality. Star Trek hasn’t said that yet, not in a way that has stuck.
Instead, we are told, through visual and dialogue cues, that the Future it still virulently straight. In a show that, as is my understanding, prides itself on its progressivism, this is a problem. There are lots of gay teenagers who are Star Trek fans. I was one of them. And while an openly gay character would have been great, I would have settled for knowing that the Future accepts and includes us.
#80—”I want a line like ‘Lieutenant Smith, I heard your brother got married. Give him and his husband my congratulations.’ ”
That’s fine, except that it doesn’t really depict a gay character in Star Trek. All it does is confirm that homosexuality still exists in the future, and that it is accepted.
“And while an openly gay character would have been great, I would have settled for knowing that the Future accepts and includes us.”
I would argue that’s already been done.
When Jadzia Dax temporarily resumes her relationship with the wife of her former host, the fact that it is a same-sex relationship is never the issue. The issue is that an intimate relationship with the lover of a past host is taboo.
Even in her conversations with Ben Sisko over the relationship, the homosexual nature of it never once comes up.
In fact, Jadzia does not even feel awkward about that aspect of it herself (nor does the other Trill female for that matter), even though the rest of her relationships in the series are depicted as heterosexual.
The fact that the resumption of that relationship is homosexual is a non-issue. It can therefore be concluded that people do not even consider such things to be noteworthy by that time.
I guess I fail to see the difference between that and what you are suggesting.
The sexuality issue is a human issue… I don’t know that it is, or even needs to be, a Star Trek issue. Straight, gay, lesbian, trans, I’m not personally disturbed by any of it. I do not see sex as an evil, however it is practiced. I am simply questioning whether the matter of sexuality in Star Trek is worth the price of a ticket. I don’t go to a Star Trek movie for anything other than (hopefully) having a good time. What the characters do when the show is over is their fictional business, I guess…
Now, I wouldn’t have cared if Gene Roddenberry had come out from day one stating that Kirk and Spock, for example, were lovers… but wouldn’t that have been more a statement about Gene Roddenberry? In that case, he would have had some personal reason why his characters needed to be gay. I am simply wondering, from an audience standpoint, would it make any difference to the story?
I’m interested to see the “Blood & Fire” episode of Phase II, simply because the sexuality matter appears to be pertinent to the plot. This is an entirely different matter than trying to flesh out a character by letting us know about his/her sexual orientation. Fictional characters engaged in sexual relationships is irrelevent, IMO, unless it is DIRECTLY related to the plot. As for fleshing out a character, the only question I would ask: when you meet someone do they tell you about their interests, occupation, hobbies, food tastes, etc. and their sexual orientation? I would think any conversation about sexuality would take place in a private setting between people who are very close and, to some degree, emotionally intimate with each other.
I do not know what will be accepted and embraced by the time we get to the 23rd century, if we make it that far. The world is changing rapidly, and people are having to adapt by the seat of their pants. As Gorkon told Kirk, “If there is to be a brave new world, our generation will have the hardest time living in it.” This is happening today, right before our eyes. Given the nature of some of the extreme and extraordinary circumstances going on in the world, the sexual orientation of Star Trek characters seems rather unimportant. I am not intending to dismiss or diminish the sexual orientation of real people here on this forum, or anywhere else in the real world, so I ask that nothing be “read into” what I am saying.
#13, 33:
Another Tigers and Trek fan checking in here. My opinion of Mr. Pine just went up several points seeing him with the Ol’ English “D”.
I’m shocked at the level of ignorance from some of the presumably straight commenters. I mean that in the literal sense, not as a snide remark – you’re vastly unaware of how condescending and offensive it is to propose:
1. The very existence of a gay character is somehow an “in your face” statement
2. That the only way to portray gay people is by overt sexuality (and by the way, what the hell is wrong with a gay love scene like any other straight love scene?)
Here’s the deal. Star Trek has always been about progressive, open-minded values. In 2008, the absence of a gay character is extraordinarily conspicuous. Really. How likely do you think it is that hundreds of years in the future, no one will ever even make a casual reference to the very existence of gay people? Not an even the normal, everyday remarks like, “how’s your boyfriend” that are dropped in conversation? Not likely, folks. The days of gays as second-class citizens are drawing to a rapid close.
For those of you who think it’s “inappropriate” or “controversial” to even mention gay people, please, please step back and put yourselves in our shoes. Do you think the same thing when Riker makes a pass at Troi? Is it a “controversial” statement when Janeway makes a wistful remark about her fiancee lost at home? Really – think about what you’re saying.
We’re just people, damn it. We get up in the morning, we work, we date, we hold hands, we bring each other to dinner parties. The same staid, NORMAL, non-remarked-upon things you straight people do all the time. Those things don’t become “dirty” or “statements” except in the minds of people who are small-minded and need to have little more rationality and basic human empathy.
Stop saying the presence of gay people is offensive or unnecessary. THAT is what’s really offensive.
84. JoshS
Exactly. Thank you.
To those who say that sexuality (straight or gay) should not be an issue in a sci-fi show, I want to ask, ‘what is Star Trek for?’ apart from being a piece of entertainment.
To me, and possibly many others, Star Trek represented a kind of ‘Family and Friends’ at a time when I felt alienated by my real family and had (and indeed still have) literally no actual friends. Now, some of you may call me a Saddo, and say I should get a life, or get out more. It isn’t always that easy, particularly if there’s a psychological disorder.
Anyway, as a child/teenager, growing up gay, I identified with Spock because he was the outsider, the only one of his kind in a world of differences (which was how I felt, utterly alone with my sexuality), and I so much wanted to be able to suppress my feelings and project a sense of stoicism.
THAT is what Trek meant to me *without* a gay character. Imagine what it could mean to young people if there *were* a gay character.