Do you think LGBT characters will feature more prominently?
- Thread starter Curios_Gelatin
- Start date
- Status
They are in business to make money.
God should strike them all down if they make something "fun".
Yeah, it's not like CBS only air one kind of show either. You've got stuff from The Good Wife, and Person of Interest, and then you've got stuff like CSI: Cyber. They've definitely got shows on right now which have important things to say, and are still enjoyable.
If that's all they do? Then yes.
No.
I'd rather have simple fun than them twisting themselves in knots trying to show us how important Star Trek is.
What's wrong with fun? Why does everything have to be dysfunctional-dark-depressing, and all that?
Star Trek already has a reputation for pretension, that's something I think they will avoid like the plague. Personally I hope they steer wide of 'message shows'. As long as they do that, they're good to go on almost anything.
Yes. It's better to put them in than leave them out, or someone somewhere will complain and find the show problematic or offensive. It's doing it well that is the problem, the new guy on TWD is a good example of what I'd like to see and then it's never really mentioned because it's not a problem in the future and no one cares. Though I would dislike it if they went full steam and made everyone bi or something stupid like that.
I really think that came into full bloom during the Berman years.
I don't mind "message shows" in and of themselves, it's that pretentiousness that drives me nuts.
When people talk about how "smart" the show is. It was never that smart. (Which I guess is the most literal definition of pretentious.)
The messages were fine, and they were good messages to be had. But the shows were never as provocative or profound as people make them out to be.
The only CBS shows I watch are NCIS and Big Bang. The former has, in fact, asked some pretty provocative questions over the years. While they're extremely rare, this at least proves CBS is capable.
When people talk about how "smart" the show is. It was never that smart. (Which I guess is the most literal definition of pretentious.)
The messages were fine, and they were good messages to be had. But the shows were never as provocative or profound as people make them out to be.
The only CBS shows I watch are NCIS and Big Bang. The former has, in fact, asked some pretty provocative questions over the years. While they're extremely rare, this at least proves CBS is capable.
I don't see any reason for anyone's orientation to be discussed. We'll know if the character is gay if she or he has a same sex love interest or shows interest in the same sex.
Kind of like how we're never told anyone is straight, we just see them having opposite sex interests and romances.
It's not at all difficult to write gay characters in Trek. Just write them as fully developed characters like everyone else. The whole point is that they don't need to be treated any differently than anyone else. Homophobia wouldn't exist in the Federation, and there's no reason to explore homophobia any more than there is racism, sexism, etc. Having a diverse crew working together is one of the big things TOS was known for, and including a gay character as part of a diverse crew honors that tradition.
Yeah, we're a bit gun shy because when Trek gets preachy, it is incredibly cringe inducing. Even TNG & TOS have some toe curling moments. Kirk reading the US constitution anyone?
Or was it the declaration of Independence? I blocked that scene from my memory.
What I want is a character who happens to be gay, rather then a character were being gay is the only major characteristic they are given. A fully developed character who happens to be gay would be far more compelling. If Jessica Jones can have a gay character who has other characteristics, surely Star Trek can manage this.
If it's a part of the general mix, then great. If it's screw every other previously seen aspect, let's just have a fun show, then (imho) that's "wrong."
Television show (like movies) are presentations. By seeing a character having a heterosexual orientation this is how we are being told. It would work the same with a gay character, the audience (in some way) has to be told, it has to be presented to us.
There does seem to be existing sexism in the Trek universe. Only one TOS female officer was ranked above lieutenant, and while there were TNG female captains and admiral, the obvious majority were male. We never saw a female Federation president, three males seen and a reference to Archer (male). And we've seem racism explored in Trek through "specie'ism", the racism exhibited to the Ferengi by Starfleet officers is overt. TOS's Last Battlefield was a exploration of racism.
What could lead you to think that Star Trek would have nothing to explore about homophobia?
But Riker and Kirk didn't "just happen" to be straight, their sexualities were a featured part of multiple episodes.
Last edited:
Sure, but them being heterosexual males was not the sum total of their characters, I just don't want some one dimensional stereotype character who's only characteristic is that they are gay and nothing else matters. Make a gay character who is compelling for a variety of reasons and being gay is just one facet of their character, rather then the only facet.
Poor writing in general is the enemy. Some of the bland one-note characters of ENT and VOY come to mind. If a character is one-note, they sort of naturally fall into being a token of whatever they are. For example, Chakotay sort of turned into just The Indian because the writers were too lazy to give him a character. The same would happen to a gay, where they turn into just The Gay.
Avoid lazy writing, avoid the problem.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
