posted
More likely it's yet another example of why Star Trek isn't socially relevant any more. It's behind the curve in almost every meaningful way except optical effects. The producers are clearly afraid to even touch on the subject except for cheap thrills (mirror-Kira). Many dramas and hell even some sitcoms include gay characters and they don't necessarily make an "issue" out of it. Star Trek is tame and safe and takes no risks, even the ones that everyone else has proven don't really matter to ratings.
And as to the "ew" crowd...your insecurities are showing.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: And as to the "ew" crowd...your insecurities are showing.
Blow it out your... er...
Let me rephrase that.
What a ludicrous concept, assuming that people who find homosexuality unappealing are somehow insecure with their sexuality. How... sexist.
I could do without watching male-female tonsil-hockey, as well, you know. It distracts from the story. If I wanted to view sex, I'd watch pron.
Personally, I figure that TPTB realized that having a gay character would do NOTHING for the storyline, provide no real opportunities for storytelling, and alienate just enough of their already-small audience to make the act unwise.
"Well, then you could write a story about that character's gayness!" "Just like all those stories about Sulu's orientalness and Geordi's blackness, right?" In the trekverse, differences like race and sexuality are NOT focused on. Nobody CARES. Writing a gay character just to have a gay character is the OPPOSITE of your goal, here.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I thought that the idea of not having a gay character was because one's orientation was simply not an issue within the Trek universe...
The two times I can remember it being brought up in DS9, for example, the issue was never about the character being gay - that female Ferengi, for example, was assumed to have the hots for Quark while still disguised as a male, and nothing was made of it; likewise, the fact that Dax and Dr. Formerhost being in love had nothing to do with them both being women. At least within the context of the show for both examples, no one had a problem with same-sex couples. How do you have a show about homosexuality when no one has an issue with it? Hell, in that TNG episode about it, the Federation certainly had no qualms about what gender you "should" be attracted to. It was the alien race only; while all these examples ceratinly touch upon the issue for the audience, it's US that are making the decision about it, and not the characters.
"Enterprise", with all its "developing" (read: ignored) ethics for the Trek mythos, has the strongest possibility to develop the theme as a valid issue that the characters can deal with. But as has already been said, such "issue" shows can still be uncomfortable with the percieved demographic, and will likely never be done. It's hardly a ratings grab... You'll note that the three episodes cited above hardly rank as all-time favorites.
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: I could do without watching male-female tonsil-hockey, as well, you know. It distracts from the story.
But we see it on Star Trek all the time, from Captain Kirk and the gogo-booted babe of the week to Picard and Vash and Paris and Torres and on and on and on.
quote:Personally, I figure that TPTB realized that having a gay character would do NOTHING for the storyline, provide no real opportunities for storytelling, and alienate just enough of their already-small audience to make the act unwise.
It provides exactly as many "opportunities for storytelling" as hetero relationships do.
And they didn't always have a small audience. TNG was a top rated syndicated drama in its time. Their ratings problems now aren't the issue, it's the history of the entire thing.
quote:"Well, then you could write a story about that character's gayness!" "Just like all those stories about Sulu's orientalness and Geordi's blackness, right?" In the trekverse, differences like race and sexuality are NOT focused on. Nobody CARES. Writing a gay character just to have a gay character is the OPPOSITE of your goal, here.
Lumping ethicity and sexuality into the same boat proves my point, because while many ethnicities are represented in Trek without comment, only heterosexuality is presented week after week, series after series, and made story points (Picard and Vash, Riker and Troi, Riker and the babes in Angel One, Troi and Worf, Worf and Dax, Sisko and Cassiday, etc, etc). Alternatives are almost never presented without making an issue of it (The Choice, Mirror Kira, etc.).
I still don't see how having a character who happens to be gay is making "a story about that character's gayness!" while having characters who happen to be straight is not telling "stories about their straightness"?
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
If I wanted to watch a love story I would, but don't put that crap in to my sci-fi, damn it. Leting us know that there is a thing between Character A and G is no problem, but focusing on it sucks....
My opinion anyway....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I have to go with Mr. Neutron. Trek no longer pushes the envelope - challenging the viewer to temporarily abandon his predjudices (some of which are all too visible in this thread) albeit in a fictional setting, so as to be able to think about a subject in an objective way.
TOS didn't do any episodes ABOUT Uhura's blackness... but they did feature the first white/black kiss on primetime TV - and did it without making an issue of the frontier they were crossing. Bravo to them - and too bad we've let the blood go thin. Now even the fans don't want their precious taboos threatened.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: I have to go with Mr. Neutron. Trek no longer pushes the envelope - challenging the viewer to temporarily abandon his predjudices (some of which are all too visible in this thread) albeit in a fictional setting, so as to be able to think about a subject in an objective way.
For a lot of people, it's a religious conviction, not a prejudice.
I really dislike the "people who don't like homosexuality are repressed/prejudiced/evil" attitude. If people are free to do what they want, then other people should be free to disapprove of it, without being insulted and ostracised.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Number 1 is out since other species on earth engage in homosexual conduct (I don't know if they do so exclusively. I have a male cat who always mounts another of my male cats. But he doesn't have access to female cats. I just think it's a dominance thing. But he also used to mount stuffed animals.)
Number 2 is out since homosexuality has been recorded in human history as long as we've had writing and is still with us. But to what extent homosexuality is genetically based is a very open question.
Number 3 is possible, but creepy. Some genes possibly associated with male homosexuality have been identified, and I read a poll saying that many American would abort a fetus carrying such a gene. (Of course, many Americans also said they would do the same if the child were carrying a gene for obesity). But the caveat of number 2 still holds.
Number 4, by a process of elimination, is the only possible answer!
Edit: Kirk, of course, is allergic to Retinax 6, which suggests that he was constantly trying to hide behind his Lady Killer persona and that slash writers were correct all along.
Seriously, Trek is safe and homogenized entertainment for the masses. It doesn't want to possibly alienate any possible viewers, so plays it safe all the time. Many series have had homosexual characters, but Trek has waited so long and the absence has become an issue. After all, Bonanza had gay characters and no one said anything.
(I made up that last part).
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Number 3 is possible, but creepy. Some genes possibly associated with male homosexuality have been identified, and I read a poll saying that many American would abort a fetus carrying such a gene. (Of course, many Americans also said they would do the same if the child were carrying a gene for obesity). But the caveat of number 2 still holds.
Number 4, by a process of elimination, is the only possible answer!
I don't see how 3 can be creepy and not 4, to be honest.
3 and 4 seem to be the same, except with different causes: one is intentional and the other is unintentional. Perhaps it was caused by WW3, by some strange weapon side-effect, or perhaps in 2045 religious fundamentalists took over the Earth by hypnosis and operated on everyone.
Anyway, unless they mention it in an episode (which I doubt they will) it would appear that we may never know...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
My opinion that number 3 was creepy is due to my general aversion to attempting to achieve some ideal of "perfection" through genetic manipulation before birth. Getting rid of diseases is probably ok but will put us on a slippery slope to getting rid of all other less than "perfect" traits, according to what is fashionable at the time. Also, we don't know to what extent homosexuality is genetically based.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I would have to say about as much as heterosexuality, or a favorite color, or food, or etc....
Is it really that important to have this issue covered in Trek? If so, why, or is sexuality that important to peoples lives that we need to be subjected to it every waking second?
Or is it that it is used to give a character 'depth'? If this is the case, what are the favorite colors of the various Trek characters?
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I challenge the assertion that Star Trek has ever been at the forefront of any cultural reform. Involved with, sure, but mostly I think peripherally.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I challenge the assertion that Star Trek has ever been at the forefront of any cultural reform. Involved with, sure, but mostly I think peripherally.
I worry that perhaps you're undermining the significance of what a chance they were taking. Gene had this ideal of this egalitarian society, this fantasy of a utopia where the color of your skin was not important, and so he put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge. It was an important thing for people to see at that time. A utopian future where the Klan has inbred itself out of existence and Uhura can be a bridge officer and it's no big whoop. You show people what's possible, how it could be good, and people start changing the way they see it, start thinking maybe. And if some people think it's window-dressing (and it is), then so be it, but he did it and it wasn't easy. And then the third Trek series had a (gasp!) black commander. It's not that Star Trek marched on Washington and demanded civil rights or anything even approaching that, but it showed us how it could be. It gave us a picture of what racial harmony might look like. And so I don't exactly know what the decision process for selecting Avery Brooks was, but I'll wager they (and when I say 'they', it's important to know that I'm talking about the studio) were looking for a 'colored' actor to play the commander.
So when they talk about putting a gay character on Star Trek, I would sincerely hope that they would make it an interesting character who just happened to be gay. Not like picking out window valences and sipping-fruity-drinks-with-pinky-extended ha-ha aren't fags HI-larious gay, but just preferring relationships with people of the same sex. Not like vaseline-smeared lens foggy beauty shots of immaculately groomed and well muscled handsome young men, but you know, like, just kind of matter of fact, not making a big deal of it, mentioned in passing sort of thing. Ideally it wouldn't matter. Ideally no one would notice that as being note-worthy. Maybe I'm desensitized to it because I live twenty miles from San Francisco (both a gay mecca and the future home of Starfleet Command), but for the most part it just isn't a big deal, really. It's pretty much just like heterosexual relationships except that both partners happen to be the same gender. It's not all assless leather chaps and thick mustaches. And maybe it's important that our society gets to see what that'd be like. Gets to see a world where two men can share the same things a man and a woman could, where two women can raise a cat togehter without the crude jokes, without the judgements that they'd face today. Maybe it's important that we see what it would be like, so we can imagine it, and maybe twenty years hence they'll get some heavy from a long-dead quasi-detective show and he'll be the Commander of the kind of boring space-station that gets more exciting after a bit who also happens to be gay. And maybe at that point we won't even notice that he's Chinese.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
In the trekverse, differences like race and sexuality are NOT focused on. Nobody CARES. Writing a gay character just to have a gay character is the OPPOSITE of your goal, here.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
