Cool News
SyFy Has Shocking Rumors Of GALACTICA: RAZOR!!
SPOILER ALERT !!
I am – Hercules!!
“Razor,” a new two-hour “Battlestar Galactica” movie that will hit the SciFi Channel in November and be released on DVD about the same time, revolves around the Battlestar Pegasus, the ship sacrificed to liberate New Caprica last season.
SyFy Portal has some new and fascinating rumors on the project. Three excerpts from the article lurk in invisotext.
Excerpt one.
"Cain and Gina were quite close," a source tells SyFy Portal. "In fact, they were lovers. We don't exactly come out and say it, but you'd have to be sleeping through the middle of all this to not pick up on their relationship."
Two.
Cain is fighting some demons of her own, one of the biggest ones stretching back to the original Cylon War 40 years before where she watched her parents executed by the 1970s versions of the living machines, and being forced to make the impossible decision of leaving her little sister behind in an effort to save herself.
Three.
As previously reported on SyFy Portal, rumors were out that the original Cylon models from the 1970s ABC series would make a cameo appearance in the telemovie, but another source says that's just not true. The inclusion of the original models is full on, and they will likely get more screen time than the new versions first introduced in the 2003 miniseries.
Read all of SyFy’s story on the matter here.
Cheap-Ass Pee-wee, Dune,
Boomtown, Supes, Etc.
$5.99 Three’s Company 1.x * $9.99 Dune & Children of Dune * $12.99 Police Squad! * $14.99 Greatest American Hero 1.x-3.x * $14.99 Roseanne 1.x-3.x * $15.99 Boomtown 1.x * $15.99 Buffalo Bill * $18.49 Weeds 1.x * $18.99 Moonlighting * $19.49 Adventures of Superman * 19.99 Pee-wee’s Playhouse * $20.99 NewsRadio 1.x=4.x * $22.99 Curb Your Enthusiasm * $22.99 The OC 1.x * $24.49 The Closer 1.x * $25.49 Mission: Impossible 1.x * $26.49 Rescue Me 1.x-2.x * $29.49 Supernatural 1.x * More!!
49% Off Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
-
+ Expand All
-
Looks like it might be good
-
Looking forward to it
-
Guess I was asleep. Lesbo action happenin' here?
-
Did anybody else think they were coming out with a Battlestar Galactica cellphone when they read this?
-
Gina is the tortured six model from the Pegasus episodes.
-
Make me the meat between a Cain and Gina sandwich any day!
-
Hmm, I don't know. The whole love angle screams of a bad episode of THE L WORD, as if they were trying to say "Hey, look at us! We're doing lesbians in love in space! See? We're hip and happening and totally with you hip and happening modern people out there who don't normally watch our show!"...meanwhile the whole "I saw my parents gunned down by Cylons, so that's why I hate them so much!" seems a bit overly cookie cutter cliche.Well, I guess we'll just have to cross our fingers and see. Generally speaking, I have good faith in Moore coming through with something solid or at least a slightly different spin on things, so no point in getting worked up or start bitching TOO much at this stage of the game.All I hope is that BSG stays focused in its last year and cuts the filler down completely and that Moore and crew really go out with a bang and one episode after another that truly have a driving purpose and point right up to the series finale.
-
Giggity giggity goo
-
May look stupid?
-
will be so sad to see it all end
-
kristen @e! said cain's a lesbo and it will be very obvious in razor. also that we're going to see some old toasters!
-
I have missed seeing them in action since the old series. Anyone remember the old Battlestar Galactica attraction they used to have at Universal Studios with Apollo or Starbuck having a shootout with the Cylons? That was the BEST thing about that tram tour.
-
Dontcha t`ink?
-
Any Starbuck shots in this movie?
-
That's right, bitches! Ensign Ro eats at the Y! Now if we could just get Boomer and Zena in on an ubelievable four-way daisy chain, that would be worth something to whack it to!
-
I still have the slides my dad took when I was 7 and when I remember that I swear they shot freakin lazer beams! I remember those cylons and the filming of a scene from Jaws 3 when I was there.
-
She broke my heart when she turned down DEEP SPACE, a role created just for her. You know, so she could pursue that fabulous movie career. Right. They absolutely NEED her for Cain. It'll suck without her. At this point she is only listed as "attached" not cast. And spend some money SciFi. They were just re-showing their WAR OF THE WORLDS. What a colossal bore that was.
-
I just can't bring myself to read any spoilers about this one. One of the best things about BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is the surprises and twists. Really looking forward to RAZOR and Season 4.
-
Would love to see some of the original actors/actresses from the show make cameos.
-
This is going to fucking rock!!!
-
Do people forget that the old cylon models were mentioned way back in the BSG mini series!!??
When # 6 revealed to Gaius that she was a cylon, he couldn't believe it because the last time people saw cylons they looked liked toasters. Number 6 said "those models have their function" Well I have been waiting 3 seasons to see what function those models have. I have not forgotten, I am waiting.... -
Ron Moore's BSG is going to be the 21st century TOS. By this I mean it will find it's audience after it goes off the air and into syndication (or whatever media will be the equivalent in the future)BSG is a classic program that is hidden on a very small network. If it could reach a larger audience people would see what a truly great a program it is. I'd put BSG on the same level as Star Trek (TOS) and The Twilight Zone. BSG will in time be viewed as a classic.
-
And I did! So there :p
-
They showed a picture of an OS Cylon in the opening moments of the mini, later there was a whole robot inside the museum as well as a large model of an OS Basestar. There is also a painting in Adama's office showing a battle between humans and OS Cylons. The season premiere of episode 2 when the Heavy Raider crashed into the museum showed a damaged OS Raider sitting on the deck near the big window.
In other words, the OS designs for the Cylons are NuBSG canon. -
...who VASTLY prefers the more recent BSG over the original? I've seen many people, talkbackers included, complain about various aspects of the original that were changed or even completely omitted. But, even though I'll watch the original whenever I happen to come across it, I CAN NEVER EVER GET INTO IT!
-
if someone says feldercarb
-
Are you new to AICN? There is a whole slew of Talkbackers who are monster proponents of the new BSG.
-
well in my opinion, season 3 pretty much sucked....
This show needs boxy, and dagget -
Wait let me get this straight (pun intended). They have a female in a strong leadership role and make her gay...I mean a lesbian. That is called stereotyping, that strong women in leadership positions are lesbians. Pretty f*cking low for the writers. I understand that homosexuals are part of reality, but at the same time the writers are demeaning strong heterosexual women in leadership positions. Why don't they just make Admiral Adama Bisexual. He's no longer married, he represses his sexual desires (after all he turned down a Six model that came on to him). Maybe the last season can focus on the issue of Adm. Adam's sexual propensities, or lack there of.
-
It's well acted, well written, good production values and bores me to tears. Le sigh.
-
And by Kat I mean Hot Kat from Season 3, not frizzy-haired, stimmed-out Kat from Seasons 1 and 2. I'm talking about Hot Kat, like what she looked like in her 2 second bit in Blades of Glory. Hmm... and Starbuck. On yeah!
-
The idea that putting lesbians in leadership positions is somehow degrading to women is the stupidest thing I've read since "First".
-
yet again...
Oh the silicates - er, I mean cylons - killed my parents in front of me when I was a kid and THAT'S why I'm such a badaaaasss
Thanks Vansen - er, I mean Cain...
Be nice to see some TOS cylon raiders tho - they were almost as cool as the vipers! -
...if the producers are telling us that they don't come out and SAY it, then chances are there won't be any inappropriate touching. Dammit. Oh, and Xiphos, if you don't like the Sack, you've got the gay bug, my friend.
-
There was nothing in the original meeting with Pegasus to indicate that Cain had anything going on with the Toaster.
Was there? Cause I sure as heck don't remember anything. -
...was it happening inbetween all the "Pegasus Crew Rapes Gina Action"?Yikes!
-
"How did you find out she was a Cylon?"
"Her spine started glowing red" -
I'd say it makes perfect sense that Cain's a lesbian - and the continued development of strong hetero females in power, especially Roslin, gives them some leeway to go there. And it also wouldn't be much of a retcon to show that part of Cain's intense hatred for Gina was due to a personal betrayal. There was a lot going on there with the potential for several explanations - the lovers thing is just one of them. But it works. Can't wait.
-
they didnt reveal how they came by a cylon prisoner. ill bet you ensign ro and six were getting it on before anyone knew it was a six. it'd explain why ro hated her so much - hows that for a betrayal. and why gina-six made it a personal goal to blow ro away. there was way more to it than just enmity. thats your precedent.
-
i read the invisotext, dammit! couldn't... resist...!
bring on the OS toaster models. if they make them move a bit faster, and have a decent aim, they could be menacing enough. BY YOUR COMMAND. -
i guess
-
On the whole I'm looking forward to this movie. The OS cylons and Cain are both interesting. I felt BSG was close to perfect during the time Cain was on the show. It was just great drama. I'm not sure what the point of Cain/Gina is, but I won't complain. Atleast it's not a Tyrol/Gaeta sausagefest.
-
...political baggage from our Earth. I can't wait for the stem cell research and illegal aliens episodes so we can fill out the political issues along side abortion. This is another unnecessary distraction that does nothing more than let the writers say "Lookit at us, we're edgy and topical."
And another thing, she's an Admiral licking carpet with an inferior officer? Anyone else remember Boomer and Chief getting reprimanded and almost sent to prison because of their relationship? -
ANIIII, YEEAAAAHHHHHHH, EEEEEEEEEEEEYAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
-
That Cain responded with "Frak you" and Gain said "you are not my type. The look on Cain's face showed more than just inpending doom, I always got the impression that Gina could sense that Cain was gay and that she was calling her out in a way, and Cain felt it. So now that they are writing it as an affair that happened before the attacks...or however doesn't surprise me.
I also wonder why they don't concentrate on the on going stories at hand instead of past events. There was talk of a Caprica spin off, taking place 20 years before the current show. I guess that is a wash since this is the last year for BSG. -
Why do all strong female characters have to have a lezy vibe to them???
-
Go to the forum at www.jim-butcher.com and look up Questions for Robert Hewitt Wolfe. Looks like The Dresden Files is set to go bye-byes....
-
Sorry bout that.
-
this show just gets better and better.
-
Because only our Earth would have issues with gay people? In the whole big wide universe only Earth would feature same sex attraction? It's amazing to see what direction these TBs go whenever a gay character is mentioned.
-
The fact that you don't bother to read is the stupidest thing since "first"
-
from being the ham-fest it was. Kira was bloody useless...
-
I always wondered what point of reference people were talking about when saying that?
Obviously it's a derogatory comment but what does being 'so gay' entail? Somehow I don't think we'll ever truly know but I'll still snicker whenever someone uses that phrase. -
I just got my ass kicked over on the Utopia talkback for saying I thought that sexual politics didn't belong in Dr Who. I had some interesting chats and some downright insulting ones, but I still think Dr Who is a show for viewers too young to start preaching to: why not keep it light?
This is so NOT the case with Galactica.
What makes this re-imagining so great is how adult it is: it doesn't shy away from any subject (Season 3 opener: War on Iraq?) and is the perfect forum to put forward and issues as long as they are relevant and fit well within the plot and background to the world of Galactica. Stem cell research? Well, that could be how the Cylons started making human "replicant" models, maybe. Illegal aliens? You could have a bottle ep with a lifeboat ship carrying a full capacity of passengers, then the family of "aliens" (another, less well regarded colony?) appears and puts a strain on resources. Galactica does edgy political drama very, very well.
And so what if Cain is a lesbian? No biggie there (though I take Redfists's point why DOES every strong female character have to be gay in sci-fi? FARSCAPE bucks that trend though). Does it service the plot? It could, if the end of her relationship with Gina leads to the chain of events that end with Gina killing Cain. This could all serve the plot very well.
Let's face it, Michelle Forbes is very hot in everything she plays. Something about that unyielding authority she has... Mmm. And she was the greatest thing in the GLOBAL FREQUENCY pilot, which is the greatest tragedy of all. -
So bring back GLOBAL FREQUENCY and Michelle Forbes, pronto.
-
Anyone else think that a Cylon's spine only glows red when they are having particularly sexy sex? I think it's the Cylon physiological reaction to an orgasm. Oo-er missus! ;p
-
Wonder who that will be.
-
You you think the writers could have avoided to whole cliched "pyscho fucked up lesbian's who die tragically" The crowd at After Ellen are going howl bloody murder.
-
They've had a fantastic 'strong woman leader' character in the show from the very beginning in Roslin, and it's *quite* clear that she has a hankering for Adama's man-meat. Stop looking for stereotypes (and tbh honest that one's a completely new one on me) where they don't exist. If there's any cliche here it's of the 'orphaned by enemy leads to burning haterd' and 'jilted/betrayed lover torments their former love' type.
-
Sci-Fi Geeks unable to discuss lesbianism without getting giggly.
-
And after BSG ends following Season 4, the only things left to watch on Sci Fi will be DOCTOR WHO and...um...DOCTOR WHO.
-
I didn't read any of the spoilers or talkback comments, so I'm flying blind here! That's how I want to be when "Razor" begins. Can't wait.
-
Cain dies, and the Pegasus blows up.
-
personally, i'd much prefer the tyrol-gaeta "sausagefest" that FrodoFraggins proposed.
-
Of course, how could it slip my mind. :^)
-
I'm reading the backstory differently. I think they're going to try to show that since Cain was forced to abandon her sister, she now has to justify that decision to herself by being a hard-ass who thinks anyone and anything can be sacrificed if it's necessary. It's to explain why she went pirate on her own civilian fleet so easy, and not to explain why she hates Cylons so much.
-
Lesbians are excellent as we can wank over the thought of them having sex, male gays are bad as there not sexy therefore we will demonise them and use who they are as insults, sweet, no wonder I try and live in the future, how can so many sci fi fans have such 1050's outlooks on life, are you all 75 years old? Spud for the 100th time Doctor Who is not preaching gayness, there slipping it in and withdrawing it so quick most folks don't even know they been brainwashed, get it right.
-
Yes, I have been watching the show per the comment about the six model. Learn to read...throughly. Roslin is just as sexually repressed as Adm. Adama. Still the writers are toying with the audience as to whether there is a deep friendship and mutual admiration between Roslin and Adm. Adama or if there is sexual tension. Major ambiguity between Roslin and Adm. Adama. Point is that there is no definitive sexual themes going on with any strong female leaders (not counting Starbuck who is a female playing a stereotypical male fighter jock to appease the 1970s fanboys; not that there isn't depth to her character, it's just the foundation. Both of the strong leaders repress themselves, and then suddenly the gay angle comes in and it is a strong leadership position. Some might call it "jumping the shark" to get viewers to watch the Pegasus special. Others might call it contrived, possibly gay bashing... as Cain is not the most humanitarian character on the series.
-
won't they have cured homosexuality?
-
cool...um, cool.
-
I must go free Jerusalem from the infidel!!!!
-
The bullshit mantra we always hear is that people are born gay, it's genetic, and blah blah blah. I don't believe this myself, but many people seem to, certainly Hollywood believes it. Personally I think people are free, and welcome, to make the choice, it has nothing to do with genetics.
So starting with the assumption that Hollywood champions the genetic route then we have a problem. Biologically speaking, gayness is a sort of mutation that is ultimately detrimental to the human species, this is not a judgement call on gays except from a strictly evolutionary point of view. So that being the case, this genetic mutation occured here on Earth just as everything else has evolved here, the outcome of this mutation (or evolution) was the result of the specific properties of the Earth itself and whatever meddling humanity itself has had in the development of our species because of things like pollution and such. Therefore, unless the 12 Colonies came from here and not Kobol, then there should not be any gays in the Colonies.
Now if we discard the genetic reasons and just go with gayness being a normal development in human society then sure there could and should be gays in the Colonies, but who in Hollywood is going to suggest it's not genetic?
In other words, this is a super complicated issue that is a total retcon at this point and only serves as a distraction and lust fodder for the internet nerds. Just as the abortion episode was an unnecessary distraction "I fought my whole career for the woman's right to choose!", STFU and stop preaching at me BSG and just stick to the goddam A plot. -
I hope the big-buckle brown jackets make an appearance too
-
Smashing: sorry, didn't clarify: I only think it's preaching in DR WHO if the gay references don't have anything to do with the plot, which they frequently don't. In my opinion, anyway. At least in BSG, if the Gina-Cain confrontation is revealed in RAZOR to be something that came out of their relationship going wrong, then obviously it's an important part of the plot and makes sense being there. I think BSG will handle gay relationships better than new WHO seems to be doing - but who knows? Maybe Season 4 of new Who will show me how it's done, and Captain Jack will have a reason to be there beyond RTD's wish to just keep putting him in stories with no real rationale for it.
I should point out that in the Dr Who Confidential series, more than once RTD has mentioned that if you have Jack in an episode, why not have him naked or near-naked whenever you can? Which is fine, but it would be nice to have a little of both sexes in there, just to keep it equal. We've seen near-nekkid Jack so far: what about some hot chick skin now?
Hey, gay or straight, I am at least hot-blooded, if not quite as horny as Captain Jack! ;p
Nutsack: oh boy, have you opened a can of worms. But if a gay relationship in BSG can be shown to be (a) completely equally regarded the same way a straight relationship would, and (b) have bearing and dealings with the plot that don't feel contrived and/or gratuitous, then BSG will have successfully managed to integrate a gay relationship into the plot without feeling "preachy". I only think Dr Who frequently feels preachy because, more often than not, Captain Jack's omnisexuality is referred to only to bring attention to the fact that he is omnisexual, and always very horny, which is all very nice but has WHAT to do with the plot again? I REALLY don't care about the fact that he's gay/bi/whatever, I'm just annoyed that in an ep where everyone else's character feels real, Jack often feels like a 2-D cypher just in there to represent the gay community, which is weird considering that as a gay writer of long standing in the BBC, RTD shouldn't feel the need to be preachy in that way. That he does is something I have trouble understanding.
There's also someone called Tegujai Batir on here, who obviously feels personally offended by me. But if he keeps pushing the "spud likes kids" angle, be aware that he's just trying to get some personal shit started between me and him. I'm not going to get involved (even with that "spud is a paedophile" provocation he put forward in his last post, the sick bastard), but for those who do: this is an obsessive nutjob who just will not leave you alone once he takes a "liking" to you. He has no real rebuttals or opinions, other than if you disagree with him, you are wrong - and then he wishes all your family will die horribly. A classy talkbacker, that one.
Actually, he's a piece of worthless shit. But that will no doubt come out in the next few posts anyway.
Anyone who's interested in the whole "spud vs batir" thing, go onto the "Utopia - Dr Who" thread on AICN. I can't be bothered with all this anymore.
I think BSG will deal with gay characters much more maturely than WHO currently is. It's not the end of the world if you disagree, and please don't take offence if my opinion differs from yours. It's just one opinion. -
"Spud for the 100th time Doctor Who is not preaching gayness, they're slipping it in and withdrawing it so quick most folks don't even know they been brainwashed" - Now you're doing it! I knew it! SMASHING IS RUSSELL T DAVIES!!!
(Just playing ;D) -
Where the hell were you on the Utopia talkback?
I may not be quite as homophobic or gay-baiting as you're coming off as being ('cos I think you're just winding people up here, which has its place ;D), but it would've been nice to have you on the UTOPIA-DR WHO TB, if only to give Batir someone else to obsessively hate.
You are both very funny, though :D -
Inquiring minds wanna know.
-
He's just the troll of the week, banning is surely coming soon so don't spend another seond thinking about or replying to him.
retcon - retroactive continuity, writing in something really big that we really should have known about before if it's so bloody important, usually hamfisted and badly written, i.e. Starbuck suddenly going nuts over Anders in Scar when they hadn't made the merest mention of Anders since Kara had left Caprica
feldercarb - original BSGs replacement word for bullshit -
Not that an Admiral wouldn't have been able to get away with it, but: I don't recall any indication that "Gina" had been an officer, or indeed in the military at all. Am I forgettting something?
And I think characterizing the depiction of (or hinting at) a lesbian affair on TV between two hot women as "political" is pretty silly. I rather doubt anyone involved thinks this will be a blow against the Patriarchy, or even influence someone's views on homosexual relationships. -
...except for one thing, the civilians on board the Peggie were conscripted from the Peggie's civilian fleet. Recall the deck chief from the Peggy.
I have to admit I might be suffering from a kneejerk reaction to the lesbian thing. I just find the "we are gay, we are ok" agenda on TV really tiresome. I'm past it, I work with gays (agents, casting directors, most people in Hollywood LOL) all the time and don't need to be reminded over and over again, maybe others do. If it can be done in a way that is more matter of fact rather than sledgehammered onto to us like the abortion episode then I'd be okay with it.
Just finished reading the Utopia thread and what is being said about RTDs overt homosexual agenda in Doctor Who and (especially) Torchwood is spot on. It's like Where's Waldo, can you spot the gay reference this week? Of course you can, because the reference is the size of Godzilla in every fucking episode RTD writes.
I've seen statistics suggesting gays make up anywehre from 1%-5% of the population on Earth, but EVERY character on Torchwood is at a minimum bi-sexual and has been shown in some sort of gay love scene. Why represent real life when you can drop a thermonuclear gay bomb on people? I like Torchwood, but the crystal clear agenda is eye rollingly obxnoxious.
-
Me when TV pulls crap like this (probably because I'm progressive). Not as bad as the "You're firing me because I'm a Lesbian" Retcon they pulled on L&O, but this strikes me as agendizing.
And I honestly think the 'spine glows red' line would be *perfect*. -
Like I said on the thread: too much. It doesn't mean you hate gay people if you say you don't want battering over the head with the "we are gay we are ok" message. It almost looks as if RTD is unsure of himself and/or his sexuality (I'm pretty certain this isn't the case, but it LOOKS that way) and has to underscore that "being gay is A-OK" every chance he gets, rather than let the gay characters be as organically part of the plot as the other characters seem to be. Am I the only person who thinks Captain Jack's character has no depth AT ALL? It looks like he's written in there just as eye-candy - and new Who is way too good to allow this kind of shit writing in it. But it's okay, because it's the showrunner who keeps doing it.
And as for TORCHWOOD... That's what happens when RTD is unleashed and is allowed to do post-watershed sci-fi. It really didn't work. For me, anyway.
I do think BSG: RAZOR will kick all kinds of ass, though. And yes, I will be enjoying the scenes of Michelle-on-Tricia (if there are any), but if RTD can ogle John Barrowman in the buff, I can enjoy the lesbianonics in BSG! Gorgeous is gorgeous however you look at it.
PS Wish I was built like John Barrowman. That man works out. -
Whether or not homosexuality is genetic, there is definitely a culture of sexual hedonists who don't care whether they're with a male or female. It has nothing to do with sexuality per se, it has to do with epicureanism (or in the case of those who cruise parks at night, availability).So it may be just looser moral values being displayed on Torchwood rather than rampant bi/homosexuality.
There's actually a large segment of the 'straight homosexual' population who loathe the bisexual population because it causes heterosexuals to perceive homosexuals as hedonistic when many of them are as tight-knit as Baptist preachers. -
I have a hard time thinking of either Cain or Gina as "okay." Even before the whole rapefest; Cain was apparently messed up even before the Cylongeddon, and Gina is unlikely to have been much more "okay" than Caprica 6. We're not talking role models, here.
-
You make a good point - it does seem at times that the company motto for TORCHWOOD is "Any hole's a goal", which reinforces the idea of it being a sci-fi remake of "Ibiza Uncovered". It does seem more to do with wanting to fuck anything that moves, and less to do with being rigidly gay/straight/bi, although if you're willing to fuck anything that moves, doesn't that make you omnisexual, like it or not?
-
Bong.
-
That's exactly why I think BSG will handle gay characters very well: they're more concerned with getting backstories and interaction right than worrying about how the characters' sexualities might be perceived by viewers. It's a fantastically mature, adult show, if a bit froot-loopy by the end of Season 3.
-
...but again, these are things that developed here on our Earth. I have a hard time believing that people wherever they are will automatically fall into the various groupings we have here on our Earth. Do we also want to see trannies and/or child molestors on BSG? Where do we draw the line? (no, I am not comparing gays to child molestors)
Actually, I have a real problem with the notion that every group needs to be represented on every TV show, in every episode, every day. -
That's my point exactly. I didn't sit there moaning about how under-represented straight people were in QUEER AS FOLK because (a) There were straight people in it, well writeen and acted, and (b) it was a drama about one section of people.
Drama should represent those characters that are required to tell THAT story in THAT time. I can't imagine anyone watching the new Who's HUMAN NATURE ep wasn't offended by the racist joke against Martha by one of the schoolboys, but it was essential to that period. The idea that everything on TV must have the correct prevailing morals/ethics in it, must have one character of each group in society (racially, sexually, etc) and must deal with one or more "issue" each week (some of the weaker eps in BSG) actually kills drama whenever it is brought into play - hence my worry for the RTD eps in WHO whenever they appear (as they feel like they are written with issues and representation in mind, to me at least) but not for BSG - there have been issues and representation eps, but in general good storytelling and plotting and writing tends to win out over them (unlike the RTD Godzilla sized references).
In conclusion: I also have a real problem with with the notion that every group needs to be represented on every TV show, in every episode, every day. Drama is far to focussed to keep worrying and being concerned with being general. -
I still have pics I took when I was 14 of the Cylons at Universal Studios. The tram drove by aCylon sitting on a big mobile gun and then you went into a Battlestar "bridge" set and there was a quick battle with 2 human actors in costume and several animatronic Cylons. The Cylons literally split apart when hit with lasers. Good times.
-
(may I call you Hairy?), isn't it a bit late to be compaining about BSG being too similar to modern-day Earth? That's just the way the show is.
Anyway, while I hate to remind you of the "Apollo, PI" episode, we already know that there *are* child molesters in BSG. -
...I did forget that. At the same time, that was a pretty good way to bring up that subject without it being some gigantic retcon issue or hamfisted in some sort of activists kinds of way. It was a natural part of the story rather than a glaring addition, unlike Apollo yearning for a love interest we'd never heard about. Ugh.
All we can do is wait, what I don't want to see is something like a character saying "Oh yeah Johnny, Cain and Gina have been together for months now, didn't you know?" What I hope is they go for something minimalist like having them waking up in bed together and kissing each other good morning, nothing more needs to be done or said. -
So I've sat back and read through your posts saying, oh i dunno, about 7 different things that are really offensive to me. Hairy Nutsack: never have I seen someone who is so perfectly defined by their moniker. Did you really just compare transexuals/transvestites to child molestors?! In what way are they analagous to one another? Why shouldn't transexuals/transvestites be represented in Battlestar Galactica and other television shows,.. just because you think they're gross?! All this talk of gay agendas illustrates how little you all know of the representation of L.G.B.T people in the media. Were you aware that gay/transexual characters make up as little as 1.3% of all series characters on network television? Gays and transexuals are simply not represented in the media in any way that reflects the reality of the L.G.B.T population. In particular gays have been non-existent in science-fiction/fantasy shows, so Battlestar Galactica's inclusion of lesbian characters is something to be applauded, even though I believe the portrayal will indulge the cliche of psycho lesbians who kill people. We'll see. And spud mcspud, following your arguments in the Utopia talkback I have no doubt that you're an egregious homophobe. You talk of Russel T. Davies "brainwashing" children with a message of gay tolerance as if the equality of L.G.B.T people with heterosexuals is open to controversial debate. It isn't. Again I ask you, why shouldn't children see Captain Jack and The Doctor kiss when the series has illustrated Mickey/Rose, Rose/The Doctor and Jackie/Pete kissing? Oh wait, there's no such thing as "heterosexual agenda" right, just a gay one. Gay characters should not be "issues" to be dealt with in the media, rather they should be as realistically represented as their heterosexual counterparts. Captain Jack may be pansexual, but he is as three dimensional as Martha and Rose. The way it should be. And I think that the Torchwood episode where Jack goes back in time and meets the real Jack more than makes up for the juvenile depiction of sexuality that the series had previously posited. Oh and people, discussing homosexuality as a "mutated" form of life does you no favours, it automatically reveals your bigoted outlook and undermines any other part of your argument. WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER... GET USED TO IT! no, really!
-
...a militant idiot with the magical gay agenda talking points found this TalkBack.
Hey moron, I said in the above post that I WAS NOT comparing gays to child molestors you fucking twat.
And WTF do you think evolution is anyway you cretin? Evolution is the changing of one lifeform into another through a process of mutation over a long period of time. If gayness comes from genetics then what I said above was accurate. All humans are supposedely mutated from apes you know, and gay apes apparentely. -
"I only think it's preaching in DR WHO if the gay references don't have anything to do with the plot, which they frequently don't. In my opinion, anyway."
Said this earlier in this very talkback - did you read my previous posts? Obviously you think I'm a homophobe who's being polite and trying to keep the piece in order to have people not hate me. I don't care who hates me - I DO care if I'm being misunderstood.
Do YOU honestly think that the gay characters in new WJHO and TORCHWOOD are faithfully representative of the gay community? What worries me is that your love for RTD's work seems to be blinding you to the point I keep coming back to: the gay characters feel as if they were written by a homophobe who knows little about the gay community, but has been forced to add them to the show. Basically, Jack and the old ladies appear on screen say something contrived like "But of course you knew we're married!" (way to advance the plot there, RTD) and disappear, having had little or no bearing on the advancement of the plot in any way. RTD has said as much in interviews on the Confidential series and other progs: HE WROTE JACK IN AS A GAY CHARACTER FOR HIM TO ENJOY LOOKING AT. And - believe me or don't, I don't care - THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM. My problem is that writing characters in just because you think the character is attractive, and writing in contrived sequences to facilitate them getting nekkid/flirty etc for no apparent reason, is just plain bad writing. If RTD were straight, and Jack were some woman getting nekkid every five minutes, the show would appear trashy and derivative. Whether or not the straight male viewing figures would go up is a matter of opinion, but the fact is: BAD WRITING IS BAD WRITING! The only gay issue is the one that makes me surprised that a distinguished, critically acclaimed proud gay writer of years of experience can write such obviously bad characters as Jack. I just think his desire to see John Barrowman near-naked or flirting around the Doctor/Chan Tho/this week's Companion/everyone else is over-riding his ability to write them into the plot coherently. It really is as simple as that. I have no axe to grind with the gay community. Whether they have one to grind with me is not my business. I just know that if every time a straight person expresses dissatisfaction with a gay creator's writing they are going to be accused of hating the creator because they are "gay", over-simplifies the situation and actually puts the accuser in the position they are accusing the straight critic of: making judgment calls on that person based on their sexual orientation.
In short: you disagree with what I am saying not because you defend RTD's writing, but because you think my criticism is based in homophobia, and attacking his writing is my way of attacking RTD without being overtly homophobic. Not so. I'm attacking RTD's writing because I think at times the writing loses coherency and verisimilitude, and those occasions are when he's writing in gay characters, because I think he feels the need to showcase the fact that he has a gay character in that show by using unrealistic and/or badly written dialogue.
The hetero agenda thing I could accept if there were any glaringly obvious gratuitious moments of hetero action that had no bearing on the story. Without resorting to calling me a homophobe again, can you give me examples of clumsily written hetero scenes pushing a hetero agenda in any episode of new WHO?
PLEASE re-read my posts: I AM DEFENDING THE IDEA OF HAVING GAY/BI CHARACTERS IN SCI-FI. I BELIEVE THEY NEED TO BE REPRESENTED AS NATURALLY AND AS EQUALLY AS HETERO CHARACTERS. I JUST THINK RTD DOESN'T WRITE THEM WELL ENOUGH TO DO THEM JUSTICE. THIS DOES SURPRISE ME, AND IT IS JUST ONE OPINION, DAMMIT!!!
PS One well-written homosexual relationship makes up for all the badly written, clumsily shoehorned-into-the-plot homo/bisexual relationships in TORCHWOOD? Shouldn't the standard for gay relationships in sci-fi these days be a little higher than one well-written one out of loads of badly written ones?
Opinions on the origins of homosexuality, as misguided and/or uninformed as they may be, are not always indicative of bigotry. They could be people just wondering how certain people can grow up differently to them. Sometimes, it's just wondering out loud. Not everyone who asks questions about homosexuality is a homophobe or a hater. It does you no credit to sound as if you think they are. And I'm not being an apologist: note that I didn't contribute to the mutated argument; it has nothing to do with homosexuality in sci-fi. -
I've noticed you pick points in my previous posts (Utopia thred) and pull them apart by ignoring other points I made in the same posts. You did the same to Nutsack in his post where he EXPLICITLY said:
"Do we also want to see trannies and/or child molestors on BSG? Where do we draw the line? (no, I am not comparing gays to child molestors)"
Immediately after the point you took umbrage to, you ignored his immediate disclaimer in the very next line. If you have a problem with what people say, at least have the courtesy to read and notice EVERYTHING that they say, and refute it all, not the bits you can pick out.
Feel free to call me a hypocrite and draw my attention to it if I've done (or do) anything like what I've just accused you of. It's useful to be hmubled occasionally, and despite sounding otherwise, I do note, with chagirn, that sometimes I can be wrong too.
Just sayin'. -
I see your frustration, but just keep replying with real arguments and rebuttals and hopefully you'll get an interesting and informative conversation out of this.
I've not got into a slanging match with Spiteface because, unlike other people going after the so-called "homophobes" on this thread, he's been consistently polite with his accusations/rebuttals. If we act the same way, it's all to the good.
Ah fuck it, I'm not your momma. I agree with a lot of your points, but you don't have to listen to me tell you how to behave. Just think it adds a touch of class if we intelligent posters all keep it nice and polite-like :D -
I just looked up egregious as I wasn't fully understanding of what it meant. Outrageously bad, blatant, obvious? I AM NOT A HOMOPHOBE!!!
How many more times?... -
...you spud mcspud. I actually found Jack's flirting in Utopia to be rather funny. In fact I liked Jack a lot in Utopia because John Barrowman was allowed to have some fun, unlike Torchwood. If not for the way RTD always injects his agenda into his scripts, we probably wouldn't even be discussing it in Utopia.
And calling for more gays in TV and cinema because there are only 1.3% gay characters is ludicrous, if even true. So how many should there be? Characters should be written as gay, straight, or whatever to meet the needs of the story, not to bolster the ego of whatever group. There are a whole helluva lot more "right wing conservative wackjob rednecks" in the United States than there are gays, do you want them get fair representation on TV and cinema too? I sure don't. -
Eat a landmine you fucking worm! If you read your own post you definitely argue that you do not want "trannies and/or child molestors" in Galactica. Notice that I did NOT call you out on equating gays with child molestors, but transexuals/transvestites with child molestors. Great memory you have there worm. Transexuals/transvestites aren't the same as being gay by the by. And you say that if the colonies aren't derived from earth then there ought to be no gay people in Galactica? say wha? So same-sex attraction is the result of what, the hole in the o-zone layer and not natural? riiiiiight. Here are some other things evident in Galactica that reflect the realities of life on earth: religion, the military, democracy, trials and court procedure, heterosexual attraction, racial groups and so on and so on. So all of those developments can be explained through evolution on kobol, but same-sex attraction can't? *rolls eyes*
-
I obtained the percentage of the current amount of gay characters on television from the glaad website. I agree with you that gay characters should serve the story, and not be included as a token to appease a minority, but looking at the figures television is simply not willing to present gay characters as anything other than stereotypes in minor roles. Why shouldn't one get pissy over that? It's not much to ask for fair and accurate representations.
-
...understand evolution at all? Ever hear of "survival of the fittest"? The primary reason I don't believe homosexuality is genetic is because evolution isn't going to mutate a creature that can reproduce into a creature that cannot, and if it does then that creature won't last long. It's really that simple. And if you really had read the entire thread then you would have read where I said, "Now if we discard the genetic reasons and just go with gayness being a normal development in human society then sure there could and should be gays in the Colonies..." Did you read that part or did you conveniently skip over it so you could attack me?
And you can quibble all day about trannies being gay or not, if it helps, I don't equate trannies with child molestors either, although I admit I believe trannies are just really confused gay people. Whatever the case, tranny or gay, no they are not the same as child molestors. Drop it, let's move on. -
I commented on your argument about Captain Jack and nu-Who gay characters over in the Utopia thread just now. Also discussed the lesbian grannies from "Gridlock" and how they served the story. f.y.i
-
First of all, "trannies" is a pretty derogatory term, but i guess it's in keeping with your opinion on transexuals/transvestites, so. And it's not the same as being confused about sexual orientation, it really has nothing to do with sexual orientation at all. In regards to homosexuality and evolution: Why can't homosexuality be a form of population control? Obviously the majority of people being born will turn out heterosexual, so there's no fear of humanity dying out, but if there's one thing the world really doesn't need any more of, it's fucking people. Recent studies have explored a hormonal link with the formation of sexual orientation in the womb, particularly in instances of boys with older brothers. So there's that. And I'm still unsure of your idea for gays in the 12 colonies,- if there's a pretty strong scientific argument for a genetic/hormonal link to sexual orientation in humans (which you don't believe) then there's no reason why the same can't be said for folk from the colonies.
-
If there is no genetic link to sexual orientation and homosexuality is a natural development because of the human condition then there should be homosexuality in the Colonies.
If homosexuality were a form of genetic/evolutionary population control then India and China would be the homosexual capitals of the world instead of West Hollywood and San Francisco.
And not to be an ass, but I really don't care if tranny is derogatory or not. I gave up trying to use the PC label of the week for everyone and everything years ago. -
yes, because all the gay people currently residing in San Francisco and Hollywood were born there right? It has nothing to do with western culture being more accepting of homosexuality than eastern. ya think? And Im not saying I personally subscribe to the homosexuality as population control argument, I was merely positing it as a response to your claims about evolution. I must be slow because Im still not sure what you mean by "homosexuality is a natural development because of the human condition". Not sure that explains anything about sexual orientation. Doesn't "natural development" = evolution?
-
My point was that there would be a lot more homosexuality where there are more people if it was an evolutionary device for population control. If it were genetic it would have absolutely nothing to do with Western or Eastern. Is there an inordinately large amount of gay Indians and Chinese people now living in San Francisco or West Hollywood? Are there an inordinately large amount of gay Indians and Chinese throughout the world? No to both questions, so the population control theory just doesn't wash.
When I speak of "natural development because of the human condition", and perhaps that is the wrong wording, I'm speaking about the old nature vs. nurture thing. I believe people are gay because of the circumstances of their upbringing rather than because of some genetic cause. Many disagree of course, and feel that my belief would somehow invalidate them as people or something. I frankly don't see what difference it makes either way. Whether you were born gay or became gay, live your life and stop worrying about what some asshole preacher in the deep South thinks about you. My Dad is rather like one of those asshole preachers and I don't give two shits what he thinks about me, no one else should either. I'm not gay, but I might as well be Hitler considering the way he treats me. -
I mean, think about it: presuming alien species X is capable of deriving pleasure (chemical response) from some external stimuli, doesn't it stand to reckon that pretty much any external stimuli could be used, without regard to societal norms? For example, foot fetishists. There are people who, for lack of a better phrase, 'get off' on feet. This response is neither societal or evolutionary, it's just that they've found something that triggers their pleasure response. Ergo, any alien species with a pleasure response can be ascribed any trigger.
You also have to distinguish between public awareness/acceptance of what is considered -- for lack of a better word -- 'deviancy' and the presence of said deviancy. Historically, homosexuality 'increases' during periods of stability and luxury (i.e. high standard of living). Classic Greece, Renaissance Italy, Victorian England, present-day America (theory taken from Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae). Does this mean there are fewer homosexuals in places that are not stable/wealthy? NO. It's just that public perception of the 'deviancy' is increased and a measure of acceptance increases as well because of the social situation.
Is there a concurrent rise in homosexual experimentation during the same periods? Probably. But just because a frat brother dipped his dick in my mouth doesn't make me homosexual. There are many straight men who dabble in homosexual acts (the 'down low' in the African-American vernacular) who aren't closeted homosexuals -- they're just desperate (or have some other unfulfilled psychological need) and other similarly desperate men are easier to score with. A true homosexual is one that commits not only homosexual acts with someone of the same gender, but is also capable of forming a bond of attraction with the same gender as well.
I lost my point. Oh yeah: aliens can be gay, or foot fetishists, or necrophiliacs, regardless of what happens on Earth.
-
I see what you mean, but I was attempting to illustrate how we don't have evolution 100% figured out with that example, in retort to you saying that evolution would never produce homosexuals because they cannot reproduce. I'd also add that there are many heterosexuals who also cannot reproduce, so I'd question the validity of an argument against homosexuality in nature that focuses on fertility and reproduction. Also, neither of us can make assumptions about the population of homosexuals in the western and eastern world precisely because of the differing cultural approaches to the subject. There may very well be a large proportion of gays in over-populated areas in comparison with the western world, but because of the sociological attitudes there is more stigma attached to being gay and therefore a greater chance that large numbers of people would remain closeted. I'd also question your belief that homosexuality is produced through upbringing/experience, and is "learned behaviour". There are too many examples of people being raised in all heterosexual environments, with them being brought up in exactly the same way as their peers but discovering they are gay whilst the others are heterosexual. Recent scientific study has indicated that there is a direct correlation with the levels of hormones in the womb and the formation of sexual orientation. One might argue that BOTH nature and nurture play a part, with people being more predisposed to homosexuality than others due to hormones etc. but speaking personally I can't see where one can "learn" to be gay, it's something you're born as.
-
...who knows, maybe we're all worng and it's something stupid like the kind of baby formula you drank. The only thing we (should) know for sure is that people are all different in a multitude of ways, and short of someone hurting someone else, we should just leave people alone.
I am a little worried about the gay alien foot fetishist necorphiliacs about to invade Earth though. I try to not be a bigot and all, but that's just too fucking much man. -
Or say, the actual news item here? They said that it wasn't going to be explicit, but heavily implied, so what makes anybody think it's going to be an 'issue' episode? It's not like DS9 with the Dax stuff and the 'Changeling Pride Parade' comments, though that was pretty progressive for the time. I think handling gay characters in a realistic way is exactly what this show can do that past scifi hasn't been able to.
Hairy, it was hard to take anything you say seriously once you said that you think homosexuality is a choice. You may choose to perform homosexual acts, but you do not choose to be gay. I can't believe there are still idiots out there who believe that being gay is a choice. I'm surprised you used evolution as an argument, because I'd expect you to believe in creationism as well. And by the way, that evolution argument does not hold up for a second. If being gay isn't evolutionarily sound, why are there still gay people? Wouldn't they have become 'extinct' in the survival of the fittest? What about all the occurrences of same sex behavior in the animal world? That 'not natural' bullshit is the usual cry of the homophobe. But it's certainly not backed up by any scientific evidence. Why do I get the feeling you're not trying - that - hard not to be a bigot? -
You know, if they are going to be bringing back the old Cylons for this thing, then I hope for this movie or for at least one episode in the upcoming final season they finally find a way to work in frakkin' DIRK BENEDICT.I mean, come on! He was just in that crappy SciFi Channel movie about the moon breaking apart (which by the way was yet another low point for SciFi Channel films) and he was looking pretty darn good for his age. He's held up well. So if he could do a shit film with Baldwin brother 4,732 or whichever one he is, why can't he do a BSG for fun?So come on, Ron Moore -- toss us a bone and give us at least one cameo!
-
which haven't been seen since the mini-series, then how about a cameo by a dead George Peppard from the A-Team intro with the cameo by the Cylon as well. Let there be cameos upon cameos. We could even include a cameo by Kameo. That would be sweet.
-
If they simply MUST address the issue of how teh ghey has been accepted in society in the near future, I would humbly suggest that it simply be no big deal. Casually mentioned once in a while in the locker room envrionment of the pilot world. "hey, when are you going to try men? When they start looking better than you, nugget!" Sort of thing. Lesbianism would be brought up more, because there is a horrible double standard on the matter, and frankly they don't want to turn off viewers.
-
...will not be overt. There was a panel recently in which Ron Moore and David Eick were asked about homosexuality in their show. Ron Moore began by saying that if they came across an instance where it served the story, then there would be no hesitation. It was at that point that Eick mentioned that there was a passing reference to a homosexual relationship in "Razor." Moore was sort of "oh, yeah, I forgot about that." So we can all stop stocking up on lube, because the reference to the lesbian relationship between Gina and Cain will be so passing that even the showrunner forgot about it. This means no scissors, no breast sucking, not even some hot lesbo tongue kissing.
-
...two hot chicks making out is a hell of a lot more appealing to the target audiences of almost any program not on Bravo than watching two dudes tongue wrestling. I read TBs yammering on and on about "fair representation" and what not and I just have to roll my eyes. The television studios invested money and went into business for one reason: to make money. Most people will change the channel if they see two men feeling up on each other. That means lost ratings, which in turn means less advertising dollars. The "we're-here-we're-queer-deal-with-it" crowd needs to take their own advice and deal with that reality.
-
... that most people will turn over at any hint of male homosexual action. The success of Brokeback Mountain, Six Feet Under, Brothers & Sisters, Will & Grace etc. emphatically reveals that there is a larger audience out there of straight people who are not so bigoted as to reach for the remote at the suggestion of male homoeroticism. The whole point of the "we're here, we're queer" movement is to fight the bigotry that makes people wretch at the thought of homosexuality. we're very much aware of the reality of homophobia thank you very much, so excuse us if we want more positive representations in the media.
-
Choices are made for all kinds of reasons, and compulsions are created in us because of all kinds of reasons as well. Not all of our choices are conscious choices, I'd wager that most of the choices we make in life are made for reasons our conscious mind can't even begin to fathom. This applies to good or bad choices, it's all a matter of genetics, upbringing, and socialization and comibinations of each. And what's the big fucking deal anyway? In what way is it bigoted or homophobic to suggest someone chooses to be gay over straight or vice versa? No one knows the reason for any of it, until they do it's all theory and conjecture. The only idiots here are those that are such PC pussies that they are afraid to discuss these theories and then have to name call because of it.
As for if gay is evolutionarily sound or not, you just answered your own damn question. The fact that there are arguably more gay people today than ever suggests a phenomenon other than evolution is at play.
And all of it boils down to what fireclown said above "gay = no big deal." I have no hang ups about someone being gay, and I find intelligent conversation about socialization or genetics interesting, why the hell is that homophobic? Christ, I've had this exact conversation on multiple ocassions with gay friends. Some disagree with me, soem disagree, one even said he could never see himself having a family, too much responsibility and such. Whatever the case, I don't hate gays and there's nothing wrong with talking about cause and effect. It's just a conversation for crissakes.
-
...it wasn't the gay thing at all. What pissed me off with Brokeback was that two people were cheating on their spouses and no one was troubled by that. I lust after other women, I even jokingly told my wife that I'd leave her for Jessica Alba, and I might at that, but somehow it would be totally okay if I left her for a man? Bullshit, utter bullshit, and it tells you how little some people value marriage when it's okay to screw around on your spouse if it turns out your gay. Horseshit. You made a promise, show some fucking character and keep your vows, gay or straight.
-
"I was attempting to illustrate how we don't have evolution 100% figured out with that example, in retort to you saying that evolution would never produce homosexuals because they cannot reproduce. I'd also add that there are many heterosexuals who also cannot reproduce, so I'd question the validity of an argument against homosexuality in nature that focuses on fertility and reproduction."
Interesting stuff, Spiteface. Could I humbly suggest that the reason for infertility in heteros and the lack of repoductivity in homosexual relationships could be evolutionarily to the same end: limiting reproduction in over-crowded areas with too many humans in them? I vaguely recall a study I read back in the 90s (can't remember, so don't count it as gospel) but some farmer had a few psychologists looking into why a lot of his male sheep were going to each other for sex rather than to the ewes. The sheep population in his area was too large to sustain the amount of offspring that would have been produced had there been more ram-ewe unions, so... it's hardly conclusive, and certainly not representative (only 1 farm in the study) but that theory - infertility + homosexuality = evolutionary response to species overcrowding would maybe be worthy of attention with a very large scale scientific study. It's food for thought, anyway.
While I also rail at the thought of bigotry (someone hating someone else because they differ from them in some way) there's something to be said about the reaction of the gay community to straights who find the idea of watching two men kissing repulsive? I can understand gay men being offended at being asked not to do that (which would be grossly unfair and ridiculous) or even being asked to limit it to certain watersheds on TV (I do agree with you that gay kissing should be as acceptable on TV as hetero kissing - it's the same thingexcept for gender differences, what's the big deal), but I ask you this:
If a straight person, who is in no way bigoted or hateful of gay relationships in any way, makes no attempt to convince anyone who is gay/bi that they are "wrong", "unnatural", or any of that other bullshit, but just actually personally finds the idea of seeing gay men kiss repulsive - does that make them a bad person, or a bigot, or a homophobe?
It's an unwieldy comparison, but most vegetarians don't want to know what goes on in abattoirs. Neither do most meat-eaters. But no-one hates vegetarians for leading a different lifestyle. I'd compare non-judgmental straight people who just find gay kissing distasteful to those vegetarians - so long as you don't tell others it's wrong, and that you keep that repulsion you feel to yourself (ie instead of telling gays not to kiss in public, keep yourself away from gay bars and turn off gay TV scenes etc), why i it wrong for them to feel, to them, a natural impulse to feel revulsion and turn away from gay kissing? If you're gay, of course you're bound to feel hurt by this, but it's not something that can be dealt with by hating - there are straight folk out there who have no issue or problem with gay folk, but who do feel bad watching gay kissing. While I don't endorse gay censorship in any way, I wonder what the gay response is to that?
And please remember when replying: I AM NOT ENDORSING GAY CENSORSHIP IN ANY WAY. My hypothetical straight who finds gay kissing distasteful does NOT want ot impose their views on anyone else, but wants to feel that they should not be ostracised indirectly for sectretly feeling what they feel.
Nutsack: Interesting point. While itv was a good portrayal of unrequited love, the guys in BORKEBACK sure didn't give a shit as to how much pain they were putting their wives in, did they? It's hard to feel sorry for someone who, in loving one person from afar, is busy fucking their spouse up completely by the vicious way they're treating them. Anmd your post is the first time I've read anyone bring this up in print. -
My typos are in full flow today, people. You have been warned. Just guess at the real meaning.
-
KkOOmrV LYOnxk
-
WdEsaSyc RwTiTB
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 455 total posts 231 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 127 total posts 118 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 108 total posts 108 posts
- Rest In Peace Bethesda’s Adam Adamowicz -- 84 total posts 84 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 65 total posts 64 posts
- Ridley Scott's Next Will Be Cormac McCarthy's THE COUNSELOR! -- 53 total posts 53 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 50 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 98 total posts 46 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 169 total posts 43 posts
- Quint travels to Barsoom and visits the John Carter set!!! -- 132 total posts 42 posts