Nothing wrong with that. It could work out fabulously.
LGBTQIA characters and Bechdel test
- Thread starter Mountie1988
- Start date
- Status
Nothing wrong with that. It could work out fabulously.
Why would it be "all about their relationship" any more than it is with straight couples on TV?
I don't think it's an either/or situation. But if romantic relationships are going to make up a non-trivial amount of the show, it would make sense that they show gay (or at least non-straight) relationships in some kind of detail, too. Otherwise it'll be quite obvious they're avoiding it while showing straight couples having issues and so forth.
I agree that direct HIV allegories and the like would be a bad idea; it's not the '80s anymore.
Agreed.
Let's wait and see what they come up with. We'll get enough to bitch about when there's concrete information about the show and the characters.
Everyone who hasn't been fully and completely represented on TV or in movies since the invention of the things, i.e. basically everyone who's not a privileged white cis straight male.
plenty of "privileged white cis straight male"s care too...they're not the enemy
Star Trek was once groundbreaking when it came to diversity, it should continue that legacy. The objection against it is proof that it's needed. I'd love to see representation of all LGBT groups.
Exactly, aside from when Lincoln showed up was Uhura's ethnicity ever even flagged up? She wasn't the black communications officer, she was just the communications officer. What was great was Nichelle being on the bridge was that it was never portrayed as a big deal in show aside from when a fellow (supposedly) from the 19th Century showed up.
No one's saying they are. We just want equal representation alongside them.
Overgeeked was saying that. Read what he wrote.
There's a brief scene in the new movie where a young man is "kicked out' of someone's quarters, his shirt flys after him, and a young woman then blocks his re-entry into the quarters. Okay, just that however the person blocking re-entry is another young man. "LGBT-problems."
(Oh ... uh, spoiler alert)
In the movie Ice Pirates, there was "space herpies." TNG did a addicted to drugs episode, TNG also did a rape allegory episode. ENT did (tried too) a AIDS-allegory episode, but I didn't know that this was what it was until years later when someone pointed it out to me.
Personally I would have no problem with a AIDS/AIDS-allegory story. It's still a problem for our society, so have new Trek do something (properly) with it.
Why would this be the sole aspect of the character/characters? Riker had more going on than just his relationship with Deanna.
Sorry, but wasn't a big part of Uhura being on the bridge that she was in fact "the black communicatios officer?" NBC wanted more Blacks in evidence on it's shows, they sent a memo to all their producers saying so.
How many Blacks did Roddenberry put in the first Star Trek pilot, unless I'm wrong it was zero. He (and others) were told point blank, more "Negros."
Uhhh no.
He is shoved out into the corridor by a Orion woman in a shift, who is carrying his shirt and tosses it at him and storms back into her quarters, there is no third person there. Obviously their date did not go well, that's all that we see happen.
Interesting claim. Source?
I did not interpret his statement as being exclusionary.
Alden, the comms officer in The Cage, was black (though I don't recall him doing much, he was present.)
Uhura's race was not remarkable in the show's universe or stories, and I think that is Robert Maxwell's & Starker's point. LGBT characters should be present and prominent, but their queerness should be incidental to the story, not their defining trait or a major plot point.
By the standards of the day, I know I am replying to an old post...but in defense of 90s Trek.
Geordi Laforge was disabled.
We don't know the religious choices of any of the Captains, and it works well that way (though we as fans then get to argue whether Trek is atheist or not. Fun Times.)
You also have to allow for the pressures on television production at the time. REJOINED was about as much risk as they could get away with in something as mainstream as Trek, the same is true for...that episode with Riker and the Jnaii.
Also, there I some truth to the argument of precisely what number of characters would in fact be representative...there were what, 8 main cast in TNG? Combine that with the social mores at the time, and Rikers relationship is positively ground breaking.
Aside from all of that, I think these aspects of characters that people are concerned about being represented are not something the stories often revolved around anyway (except in Voyager. voyager was like a mills and boon novel in space some weeks.)
So...I have faith that there will be a lot of positive representation, this is Trek after all, but some of the political pressures that feature in today's world do not apply in Trek (are any of the existing characters explicitly defined as having religious backgrounds? How much did a characters ethnic or cultural background come into play outside of a few characters, some of whom tripped dangerously close to stereotypes? Disability in a world woth medical technology that can fix damn near anything? Technically I think Bashir may even be an example of touching on that last one and it's ethical ramifications.)
Representation is a tricky thing with a worldwide audience. The closest character to my cultural background is Bashirs parents. And he's not the same ethnicity. (oh..and maybe Ian Andrew Troi) Did I give a monkeys? No. I just loved that in some far flung future, people like my family still existed. So I understand the thrill that seeing some echo of yourself in Trek is valuable, and some people still need to have that, and they should.
But it would be wise to accept that no one is going to be exactly representative. We are unique, just as Bones points out when worryingabout destroying the one called Jim Kirk.
Representation for many will be a great step forward for Trek, but getting obsessed over it is not good for writers or audience. I hope a whole bunch of people get to see their echoes of self on screen, even if it's only for a few minutes here and there.
(no more Malcolms though. I actually thought his accent was an act. Especially after the joy of Sid and Colm)
Maybe TOS should have had a KKK member to attack Uhura for being black. He's just "voicing his opinion".
Thankfully they didn't because it was a better future when bigotry and hate are seen as awful qualities that we left behind. Being against any group isn't a person voicing your opinion, it's them being a bigot. One day, the sooner the better, attitudes that try to deny or even simply try to hide LGBT people will be seen as shameful and horrible.
Star Trek has always shown a future where all of humanity is working together and with various aliens to explore the universe in peace. That includes LGBT people because despite the wishes of many people, they're part of humanity and always have been despite the best efforts of people just voicing their opinion.
This. Bingo. Exactly. You write them as people first, not as their sexuality first, and it will go almost totally unremarked. It'll be progressive because there they are, gays, lesbians, trans-gendered in peoples homes weekly, and some people won't even think about it. This is how you transform culture and change hearts and minds.
And for people who don't understand why some of us harp on this point. In the past it has been LOOK AT HOW GAY THIS CHARACTER IS. DO YOU SEE HOW GAY THEY ARE?! LOOK AT THEM BEING GAY! Which, to me is backwards. It's not that gay people are gay... It's that gay people are people. We are all human beings in this thing called life together, and that should be the objective of Star Trek in terms of what it depicts. Emphasis on the otherness does not generate a sense of unity, it draws it into the light and makes it stand out which is going to cause the exact opposite reaction that people should be aiming for with the audience. Which is acceptance, understanding, even appreciation of our collective humanity.
Star Trek up to this point also has a fairly shoddy track record of handling the topic of sex in general. Often with the maturity of a 12 year old. The Dax kiss was advertised for the sex appeal. Episodes like Night in Sickbay went from being a potentially interesting character study to... Infantile boob jokes. Cat suits on Voyager and Enterprise... On and on. So there should be concerns raised that this is handled with some maturity for change. On all fronts, too.
People need to get it into their heads that LGBT people are just like everyone else. We aren't some alien force living among you and we have just as much to contribute to society as everyone else. It's sad that this is an argument that even needs to be made, but it clearly does. For whatever reason seeing LGBT on TV and movies makes some people uncomfortable. Well they deserve to be made uncomfortable. We aren't going away and acceptance is only growing larger. Maybe one day we'll actually live in a world where everyone is actually treated with respect because we've realized that all of humanity has something to contribute to the richness and diversity of life. But we aren't there yet and sadly some fans of an once progressive show like Star Trek are among those clinging to the ignorant past, the very people demonized on the show.
No there isn't, where'd you get the impression there was?
Inside Star Trek: The Real Story by Herb Solow and Bob Justman, there's a copy of NBC's memo about a third of the way through.
We know from dialog that Captain Kirk is monotheist. When asked point blank, Sisko stated that he had beliefs, but he didn't spell out what they were. Picard believes in a afterlife. Can't remember Janeway or Archer saying anything on the subject.
Attack verbally? I would like the main characters to not be all of the same mind set and disagree on various social and philosophic issue.
Wouldn't mind is some of the main characters just plain didn't like each other.
Archer was "keeping an open mind" (stated in "Cold Front", I believe).
- Status
Similar threads
