If Captain Picard had been written as openly gay from the start, Jenice Manheim (with a different first name) in We'll always have Paris could have been cast with a male actor. With no large changes in the script. Later, the character of Vash could also have been cast male. And the crewmember from stellar cartography as well. The fantasy spouse in the Nexus again male. By having the rest of the main character regard Picard's "gayness" as nothing out of the ordinary, this would send any message that Roddenberry was too timid to actually send. Not some secondary character, not a guest star, the male lead, front and center.
Pretty much this. Whether "Blood and Fire", another script or just a slice of life aboard the Enterprise, Roddenberry had the power to make it happen and didn't.
This is based on everything the characters themselves have said- about their society. It's also based on things the actors and producers have said about the show. Just a small example; There have been way too many speeches and examples and interviews to not sense what the show's premise 24th century human society is about. Now whether the episodes are consistent with the show premise is another thing. So seriously, its the 3rd season of TOS, and I'm shocked that eventually Uhura and Kirk share a kiss? (even if it is the 60's). Or it's circa 1994 and the new show Voyager is going to have its first female captain as a main character. After seeing Garret, Satie Nechayev,-- that's shocking, threatening? I understand being cautious about what children watch, but there is something kind of off about freaking out over a 5 second kiss, after years of hearing characters talk about rape gangs, mind rape, "fully functional multiple techniques android sex", Luaxna Troi doing it with her captor (and kind of liking it) Riker doing it with an alien woman to escape a hospital etc. After watching a show for a few years, they don't get what the show is generally about?
Kirk and Uhura were being force to kiss, it wasn't a "shared kiss," it was a form of violation. Not romance.
Oh, dude. If you reach any farther you'll hurt yourself. There's nothing remotely real about reality TV. That's probably the only thing it has in common with Trek. If someone was looking for the meaning of life, I don't think I'd point them at a TV show. I don't care how deep it was supposed to be.
But statements like this are kind of insulting because you're telling other people they're not entitled to take anything away from their entertainment besides cheap thrills and escapism. That's not all people get out of it and it isn't fair for anyone to dictate what people should or shouldn't get out of it. Art is ultimately filtered through the mind of those who experience it. For instance, there's a film coming out shortly called Ex Machina that is getting a lot of press. You know why? Because it is deeply infused with gender politics. It's got a 90-somthing rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on people who have already seen it (as it's come out already in other countries). On the surface, it's a thriller, but the filmmaker has an agenda, which is to use his characters to explore a heated topic. And people are already calling it one of the best films of 2015, in part because it does inspire you to think about these issues. To me, this is a big part of what our entertainment should do. It's a philosophical essay framed as narrative and buried to such an extent that it should be kind of subliminal. Think of all other sci-fi out there with a "big point" to make. 1984, Brave New World, Clockwork Orange. I could go on, but I just think it is insulting to the art-form of film/tv and to fans who get a lot out of it to make the "it's just dumb entertainment" argument.
And then there's the scene in First Contact where the engineer Liiy Sloan verbally forces Picard to realize that his carefully constructed fantasy of himself and his place in society was nothing but a house of cards, Picard in fact was all too Human, he possessed all the same frailties and hatred and bigotry as the thousands of generations who presided him. Picard is us. Not less, but certainly not more.
Then you're kind of disregarding the medium altogether Could say the same thing about books, and then stories, and then all forms of expressing stuff. I'd say there's a middle ground between "unlocking the meaning of life" and "turn off the brain entertainment" Star Trek is definitely up there with Twilight Zone as far as entertainment that gives people actual stuff to think about. Twilight Zone wasn't set in reality but who would argue that episodes like "Eye of the Beholder" wouldn't have a lot to say about real life.
I can find "The Meaning of Life" on television. Just not very often. Monty Python films don't show all the time.
I agree. There really doesn't need to be this black and white opinion that Star Trek is either mindless or inspirational. Sometimes it is one, sometimes its the other and sometimes it is somewhere in between. The idea that I don't turn to Trek or TV in general for inspiration is an oversimplification. I derive meaning and inspiration from multiple sources in life, including Trek, sometimes. I think more the point, at least in my opinion, is that it isn't the primary source. I've been on record that Abrams Trek is just as interesting and some times inspiring as any other Trek for me. That doesn't make it less entertaining. Just that I found something that inspires me. I really think there is a middle ground to be had here.
She was also only two years old. If even. A big part of her character arc is about growing and maturing into adulthood, something that implicit confirms we're meant to view her as an elfin child-like Young woman. (As evidenced be the conscious sexualisation of her in the third season, with the long hair and the jumpsuit and plots like Darkling or Warlord.) Look, she may not be a child in the life of her species, but she's still characterised as childlike. DC had the same problem with the relationship between Hal Jordan and another Green Lantern in the eighties.
And we can stop right there. But if you'd like to go on, even people continue to mature after they're adults. Adults who thought they were suitable for each other and get married might later grow apart and get divorced. Changing as we get older, and maturing, is a part of life. Referring to Kes as a child is hyperbolic. Ocampans reach young adulthood at one year old. So, where would that place her in the life-cycle of a human being? Two-ninths of the way through her whole life? So, in her twenties, perhaps? Jennifer Lien was in her twenties during the filming of Voyager. Ethan Phillips was in his forties. I really have no idea how old Neelix was supposed to be, either in years or in relation to the lifespan of his species, or if I ever knew I've forgotten, but I really don't think it's important here. Neelix's and Kes's relationship was never depicted as anything other than one between two consenting adults, and neither harmed the other. That's all anybody should be concerned with. Considering the vast differences that an inter-species relationship would involve, it's not really any more bizarre than any other inter-species relationship in Star Trek. Just think about what would be involved when you date a Trill for goodness sake. Dax is practically robbing the cradle when it comes to Worf and Julian.
This goes to what I was saying before about people taking different things from the same scenes. While I might question your interpretation, I would never insist you adopt mine. But the reverse should be there as well. I feel that Star Trek is at it's best when it depict moral dilemmas, which means they have them. When there are problems within the Federation and Starfleet, which means they have them By the 24th century, yes I can see that they are technologically and materially better off than we today, but the people in power are still petty, and weak, and short sighted, and focused on themselves. Their society has created comforts, and this has alleviate some historical problems. But generating that comfort is a ongoing effort, and the people in receipt of those comforts are the same people who exist today. As was pointed out on the show, you remove those comforts and the thin veneer of civilization would disappear quickly.
I think all the interviews, documentaries, articles and certain episodes, have put into public consciousness the idea that Trek is a show about values, meaning and human hope. Watch any documentary about Trek and you'll always here a closing statement about hope for humanity or "we'll make it" or something. So that has a lot to do with it. What I'm seeing is, the characters and episodes describing how their society is, so from that, I base at least some idea on what the show is going to do and probably not do. @T'Girl. So this is intriguing, though I've seen your viewpoint before. So you're saying that 23, 24th century humans were never as evolved as they (and Trek) claimed to be, and a lot of it was all smoke and mirrors? Gay people are probably oppressed or still ostracized into hiding, humans are still greedy? No, seriously this is a curious question on this viewpoint..
Yes, the Ocampa age a decade for every terran year and have roughly not much greater a proportional lifespan than us now. Which is scary and depressing but there it is.
Wasn't there a theory that homosexuality, if one assumes it is a natural evolutionary trait, was one of nature's way of curbing population explosions. That in places where a species has grown too large for its region, the number of homosexuals would increase to lower the chances of sexual reproduction. It sounds like a logical cause and effect thing at the very least. If that was the case ("if" mind you) than if humanity needed to first repopulate after the end of the Third World War and then started expanding to dozens of colony planets, there would be no natural instinct or reaction to need to curb the species from breeding, as they would have lots of space to fill. Thus, if that theory held any weight in Star Trek terms, there would be less homosexuals in the human race just because the enviromental conditions don't require a curb on breeding.
Not really, nearly every species on Earth displays homosexuality, and in none of them is there a real correlation to their current population or reproduction rate, nor does it change as population increases faster or like humans, exponential growth. The amount is always roughly proportional, and there. So it's not that.