Blood and Fire in one way worked against gay marriage being common in the Federation, in one scene Peter (?) tells his uncle Captain Kirk that he has a husband, and Kirk responds with shocked puzzlement "Husband?" I didn't get the feeling that if Peter were to have referred to someone as his wife Kirk would have responded with the same emotion. That wasn't my understanding of the court's final verdict, and I believe you're mistaken. That doesn't follow. Just because a character or a group refer to themselves as lacking prejudice, doesn't mean that prejudice doesn't exist within their society. They're making a claim that (in this case) doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I brought up before the scene where Picard insists that he's socially evolved and Lily Sloan calls him on it and she forces him to realize that really he isn't. Picard's perception of himself was false. You mean the episode where a female in a androgynous society wanted to be female? Yeah, what a great "gay" episode. No, because there are more than 700 hours of Star Trek, some of it made in the 21st century. We don't want social justice, we want a depiction of a sexual orientation that really exists within Humanity. We want a taste of reality inside the fantasy. Because inspite of the behind the scenes bullshit that the show is supposedly so "progressive," in actuality it wasn't. It's all propaganda and bluff, and the fans (some of them) are calling TPTB on this, they're holding up a mirror to the official position that simply won't stand up to the light of day. While other shows were doing actual gay story lines and presenting gay characters to the exact same audience, Star Trek didn't.
In the 60's, Star Trek was ahead of the curve By the 90's, it was way way behind Perhaps if they'd spent less time in the 90's patting themselves on the back for their 60's reputation.....they might have noticed
I always read that scene as Jim just being surprised Peter was getting married at all. One, he probably though Peter was too young (It wasn't all that long ago that Sam died). Two, things went badly the last time Jim officiated a wedding on Enterprise. Three, Peter wears a red shirt.
Look at the preceding argument that comes right before the verdict. Picard just got Maddox to admit that Data had all the criteria for sentience. After that, the court ruled that Data had the right to choose. The entire trial revolved around whether Data was sentient or not. They didn't argue about starfleet procedures. If Maddox proved his point, Data would have been toast. Ahh, but it was a "social justice" episode wasn't it? With a message. However lame it was. But wait, wouldn't that be expecting something from Trek? Where did these expectations come from? But, if Trek is entertainment first, even if the TPTB B.S around about homosexuality, there shouldn't be an expectation to show it. If it's an entertaining sci fi show first, they could choose to leave out whatever they want right? We're only watching it for entertainment, right?
The whole trial was about whether or not Data was Starfleet property... His whole 'right to choose' revolves around whether he is or isn't Starfleet property. I wonder how much different the trial would've went for Data if it was Noonien Soong who came back claiming Data was his property?
The Outcast was more a lack of social justice story. And the message? Picard in typical fashion turned his back on the problems on the planet and merrily warped away, that was the message. Where was one of Picard's trade marked, long winded, I'm better than you, speeches? The expectation come from me and others, who are consumers of the product know as Star Trek. We think that the change that the inclusion of gays would be, would improve the show. The expectation is entertainment, and my enjoyment of the show would be increased with the addition of a gay character. If there were no females on the show, this would have reduce my enjoyment. If there were no Latins on the show, this would have reduce my enjoyment. When TPTB on ENT had the Captain of the second NX starship be a Latin women, my enjoyment of the show soared. Now if she had just been gay too. And one of the thing's they left out was the presence of gays in the future. Now one for you Nightdiamond, if the show was actually interested in having most of the episodes be about "social justice," why didn't that philosophy include gays? Why didn't TPTB extend their "most episodes" about social justice to having a clearly identifiable openly gay Starfleet officer?
The thing about depicting homosexuality in Star Trek (or lack thereof) is simply because, if you want television that's true and representative of the audience (because television is, at the very core, an extension of the audience), LGBTQ people are part of that audience. They always have been. It's not like they came out only a few years ago and demanded representation. They've been friends and neighbors and family members. And in the 60s, the vast majority of them were closeted, but that still meant they were there. If LGBTQ people are here, then so are their friends and family and neighbors who support them and similarly want to see that kind of representation on TV. The thing is, go to any place in the US and, if we're being honest here, there *will* be some sort of LGBTQ population. Even if they're hidden away, they're still there. Even if it's one person in a farming town of 20, that's still a population. Whatever progressive/non-progressive values Trek claims to have, the key buy in here for the audience was that they could relate. This is why Kirk is the all-American hero and Spock the outsider looking in -- those are already two broad nets. Then you add in people of color and you see their respective audiences tuning in to watch (even if episodes weren't focused on them! In the 60s, just seeing them on screen was enough. The Asian American population was miniscule by then, and no means profitable to cater to them)). Honestly, showing that LGBTQ people exist and are a part of our communities isn't an agenda or pandering or anything hostile like that, no more than showing a person on TNG with a disability or a female MD is somehow groundbreaking (it's not). It's to show, again, that they exist in our lives and thus take part in these situations. Or shall we complain about how blind people are being shoved down our throats?
Its funny, because I've read that Rod Serling conceived of The Twilight Zone in part as a platform to tell stories that he couldn't get away with on Playhouse 90 or other conventional network shows, hiding issues in the guise of science fiction and fantasy. Roddenberry basically repeated this statement. Star Trek has the honor of becoming the most popular sci-fi TV property, which means it often gets credit for things it didn't pioneer only because it is better remembered, much as some people think either Gone With the Wind or The Wizard of Oz was the first color film.
Agreed. A lot of shows were moving the "diversity" ball forward and doing little morality plays. The impression that Star Trek was among the first and the boldest is somewhat overstated in our fandom's mythology. But ST did have two minorities as regulars, and that was unusual.
I just rewatched that scene in Phase II's "Blood and Fire", and it seems to me that Kirk was reacting with surprise that his nephew was referring to a husband out of the blue. It seems obvious that he had no idea that Peter was involved with Freeman, and he might not have even known that his nephew was gay. Either one of those revelations rates a bit of surprise in my book. Also, it's not really fair to judge what TNG's version of "Blood and Fire" might've been from Phase II's version. Remember that it was substantially rewritten 30 years after the fact to both adapt it for the TOS characters and to expand it to a two-parter. It's better to judge it from the script that Gerrold actually wrote back in the day.
This. Regarding the entertainment vs. morality play question, there's a very instructive passage from a memo Roddenberry wrote to D.C. Fontana about "Charlie X" which I need to dig up again. Basically, he reminds her that Star Trek is primarily an action adventure show intending to entertain, not East Side West Side or The Defenders.
He didn't have to. Soren was the one gave the speech/message. Social message times 10. Ahh, good point, but if it didn't, could you still enjoy it on the basis of it just being a space and adventure show, just like you did as a child? Without any expectations, because after all, it's just a space and adventure show? But where do gays in the 24th century and social justice meet? Why would having a clearly open gay character symbolize social justice in the 24th century? Take the Sisko and the holosuit issue. Was Sisko wrong for not wanting to participate in program that seemed to wash over the prejudice and discrimination in that time period? But the argument against it was, since racism doesn't exist in the 24th century, why would he bring the subject up? Sisko was being racist himself. But is this type of thinking hypocritical? That's a pretty valid argument.
Did you actually mean to imply that Sisko was being racist for not wanting to play in a whitewashed historical scenario?
Problem with that is I'm no longer a child and expect more from my entertainment programming. There are expectations, I covered that previously. It's a action-adventure show mostly, but it's also has drama, and occasional comedy, and to quote myself ... Which I stand behind, the "social justice" you refer to is on rare occasions present, but in the case of gays fell short. Look at the movie Insurrection, Picard wanted to deign the people of the Federation an important medical advance, where's the social justice there? In Homeward, Picard stood by and did nothing as the majority of the population of Boraal suffocated, social justice? Again, there are a few legitimate social justice episodes, just not very many in the overall mix.
This is where I have to repeat that just because Trek tried to tell some socially relevant stories, it doesn't mean that it was a "social justice" show. :/