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.

In other words, the OS designs for the Cylons are NuBSG canon.

This show needs boxy, and dagget

Was there? Cause I sure as heck don't remember anything.

Yikes!

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?

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.

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 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 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.

(Just playing ;D)

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

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

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.

And I honestly think the 'spine glows red' line would be *perfect*.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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'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

How many more times?...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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!

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.

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.