Stargate reboot gets writers.

[Falcon Horus]

How bad was it?

Bad... I'd probably cringe all the way through it if I would read it now.

[Arica15]

There must be a cached copy somewhere!

[Falcon Horus]

There must be a cached copy somewhere!

Oh, it still exists... It was never taken offline, though I lost the original copy.

[jelgate]

You should go get it for a few laughs

[Arica15]

You should go get it for a few laughs

Waaay ahead of you

[garhkal]

I don't see how having an LGBT+ character is a bad thing? Although if they're just the embodiment of stereotypes then I'll just implode.
.

Part of ti for me is it just seems a lot of shows are putting one (or more in) just to 'appeal' to a demographic.. Nothing more.

The other part, is often those characters are rather in your face..

[Falcon Horus]

It's like a putting in a black character you mean...

The token character every show has to have - the sexy female alien, the grunt, the hero, the scientist, the gay man, the lesbian, the black man/woman, the troubled youth, ... the list goes on.

[thekillman]

The token character every show has to have - the sexy female alien, the grunt, the hero, the scientist, the gay man, the lesbian, the black man/woman, the troubled youth, ... the list goes on.

I just keep laughing whenever people mention "obligatory gay/black " man/woman. Storytelling is chock full of standard compositions and standard heroes including token exposition characters like medics and scientists, token villains to make a point about safety or correctness, token animals to be saved and token characters to inspire your hero. but no, the token black guy is bad.

[Super Hive]

Okay, I have a massive problem with that kind of attitude towards minority or marginalised characters.

To write off the inclusion of LGBT+ characters as mere pandering to 'appeal' to specific audiences is insulting. We exist. LBGT+ people are real and we deserve to be a part of the media as much as anyone else. Why is having one character such a big deal? Yes it can come off as very tokenising which sucks, but then people moan when there are two or more LGBT+ characters in the same vicinity because apparently it's "not realistic". (Note: I'm not accusing anyone here of saying that, but I've read many such sentiments online.) The other day I was at a pub with some friends and friends of friends, and for some reason it was such a big deal that there were three gay men in the same room. Believe it or not we're everywhere.

In Stargate Universe did anyone honestly think that Camille Wray was a "token" LGBT+ character? She was a fully realised character and her relationship to Susan was one piece of her character. As much as I wish Camille was given more to do on the show she was well written.

Now, if you mean that the shoehorning in of characters whose entire identity is that they're LGBT+ and they're just snuck into the background for the showrunners to feign inclusivity then yes - these characters suck. If Camille Wray had just been tucked away at Homeworld Command, appeared for a few scenes and had her entire character be centred around her gayness that would have been awful and it's something that is seen far too frequently. However, to blame LGBT+ characters for this rather than the writers who create these hollow shells of characters is incredibly misguided.

In regards to some characters being 'in your face' - what do you mean exactly? That they're loud and unapologetic about their sexuality? Good. In the real world so many LGBT+ people are have to remain silent about who they are out of fear of repercussion, whether it be that they could face violence (even death), ridicule or outright banishment from their families. To have an LGBT+ character be a bit blatant about their sexuality can be a double edged sword: written well it can be a powerful way of highlighting just what these people have to go through in their every day lives; but if it's written badly it can be used to straw man various harmful stereotypes. It all depends on the writing - not the character themselves.

In regards to other minority characters, say characters of colour: SG-1 gets to be a white male sausage fest for 10 seasons and no one bats an eyelid. Imagine if there were TWO black people as leads in SG-1 instead of just Teal'c? Would that be considered just more pandering? It took 9 whole seasons for there to be two women in the leading roles in SG-1, Sam Carter and Vala. (I consider Janet Fraiser a secondary character, but important nonetheless.) Do people think that Teal'c is a token black male character? In SG-1 he is the only black lead but he is a fully fleshed out and realised character who is a fan favourite among many, myself included, because of who he is, all that he has been through and all that he has accomplished.

I just think that some people need to re-evaluate their ideas about inclusiveness. It is NOT a bad thing. Tokenism sucks, but we can't blame that on the characters themselves when there are people writing these poorly written characters who get off blame free. Actual inclusion is good for everyone because marginalised people get to see themselves represented in media in a positive way and those who aren't too familiar with those minority groups get to be opened up to a whole range of characters who can show that they exist beyond being horrible, damaging stereotypes.

Roland Emmerich himself is gay. Times have changed since 1994 - who knows, maybe he will include LGBT+ characters into the Stargate reboot? I don't think he'll handle it very well if Stonewall is anything to go by. It's not as if the original film was that good to begin with. Even the straight characters were pretty damn boring. The original Jack O'Neill was an emotionless slab of rock with no character to speak of beyond "my son accidentally killed himself with a gun I bought and I now feel nothing", which could have been a good angle to develop his character from but it fell completley flat. SG-1 O'Neill is so far removed from the original Stargate O'Neill and that's thanks to Richard Dean Anderson who insisted on infusing some snarky humour into his character. Why do straight characters get to be one dimensional and no one really cares, but LGBT+ characters have to achieve very specific criteria to be considered anything more than pandering?

[Falcon Horus]

Okay, I have a massive problem with that kind of attitude towards minority or marginalised characters.

I don't remember any of us marginalizing any character. We were just pointing out the token characters, which sadly happen more often than not.

There's a bloody good reason why Hollywood is currently under investigation for their blatant discrimination against the female half of the acting/directing/behind-the-scenes people.

To write off the inclusion of LGBT+ characters as mere pandering to 'appeal' to specific audiences is insulting.

It is. You are correct, but sadly that is more often than not the reality of the thing. I don't like it either, as member of the LGBT+ community.

Why do straight characters get to be one dimensional and no one really cares, but LGBT+ characters have to achieve very specific criteria to be considered anything more than pandering?

It's Hollywood. We expect nothing less from them.

As far as the token black character goes, I'm always reminded by what they did on Rizzoli and Isles. Barry Frost was a young black male. Lee Thompson Young was a fantastic actor who sadly died at too young an age. So, instead of recasting the role they killed the character, which I don't have an issue with. However, the new character to sort of replace him, was a young black female. She's a fabulous character and a wonderful actress, but it struck me as odd that the one black male was replace by a black female. The rest of the cast is as white as they come, and the only asian-looking character they had was murdered, and not replaced.

[Super Hive]

I don't remember any of us marginalizing any character. We were just pointing out the token characters, which sadly happen more often than not.

Ooh I'm sorry if it came off like I was saying people here were marginalising characters. I was using 'marginalised' and 'minority' as a comparible term because 'minority' doesn't always sit well with people. Mainly because people of colour are actually the majority and not the minority which can be annoying for people, so I just wanted to cover all the bases.

As far as the token black character goes, I'm always reminded by what they did on Rizzoli and Isles. Barry Frost was a young black male. Lee Thompson Young was a fantastic actor who sadly died at too young an age. So, instead of recasting the role they killed the character, which I don't have an issue with. However, the new character to sort of replace him, was a young black female. She's a fabulous character and a wonderful actress, but it struck me as odd that the one black male was replace by a black female. The rest of the cast is as white as they come, and the only asian-looking character they had was murdered, and not replaced.

At least he was replaced by a person of colour and not another white character, if that's any consolation. So many shows tend to do that when characters of colour are killed off or written out of the show. It's one of the reasons I wasn't too salty about Ford being written out of Stargate Atlantis because they replaced him with Ronon. While Jason Momoa isn't black he is a man of colour: he's polynesian. Ronon's character would have been a bit problematic if the actor was black, since Ronon is very aggressive, confrontational and a tad violent at times, and would have just fed right into the Angry Black Man trope *cough*Greer*cough*.

But yeah, if the Stargate reboot included an LGBT+ character (or even more than one! *Brain Overload*) and multiple characters of colour I'd be down. However, given Emmerich's wanting approval of the straight audience (see: Stonewall, where he admits that shoehorning in a made up young, conventionally attractive, 'straight acting', white male character was for the benefit of straight people), I doubt we'd get any type of character that's anything more than generic.

[aretood2]

This is how bad hollywood is with this sort of thing. Take Law and Order SVU's Raul Esparza who plays Rafael Barba, the ADA. He loves his current role because it is the only one (or one of the very few) where he gets to play a hispanic....considering that he is a hispanic that's quite something. That they aren't willing to write his roles to fit his ethnicity isn't the issue (well...it can also be an issue).He's auditioned for hispanic roles but because he doesn't exactly look like Danny Trejo they don't give it to him because "all hispanics are the same brown" and not to mention "Hispanics can't have professional careers."

Many times when you do get hispanic characters...they're drug dealers, corrupt individuals, maids, illegal Aliens rarely anything else. It's a miracle he's a good ADA. And this is even worse in video games. At least Black and LGBT people get tokens. The best hispanics can hope for sometimes is simply getting a role as a messed up bad guy or a walking stereotype.

[garhkal]

Too true. Somewhat the same with Asians.. They are either related to or part of the Yakuzza, triad, or are rich computer geeks..

[aretood2]

To be fair, I did fail to mention that one area where they do get more representation tends to be law enforcement characters. Interestingly enough. Several LEO shows include hispanic cops to some extent. Currently one of my favorite cop shows, Blue Bloods, has a hispanic detective. She fits in naturally and is a pretty cool character. Anyway, this is way off topic...I digress.

[jelgate]

Only after CBS unfairly fired the Italian actor