Season 3 Finally Lands October 15

[Locutus of Bored]

I just find this OTT liberal sledgehammer approach to be getting tedious. 5 gay crew members on two shows and now this. And I myself am gay so don't come at me from that angle.

"I myself am ______, so it's OK for me to say something bigoted or sexist" has become the new "I'm not racist, but... (immediately says something racist)." It's not a shield or a get out of jail free card from criticism or consequences.

Nothing could possibly be as tedious as your one-note whining about what percentage of women and LGBTQ people on the show(s) constitute "virtue signalling" or a "liberal sledgehammer" agenda. It's been two seasons of this nonsense from you already (and that's not even counting the other shows and forums you've done it in), and I don't want there to be a third. You've established your "point", such as it is, ad nauseam, and derailed more threads and been told to stop more times than I can count. Everyone knows where you stand and the show is thankfully not showing any signs of bending to the collective will of bigots. Move on with your life.

CBSTrek just takes it so far, it just comes off as forced virtue signalling.

I have no number in mind, just something that feels a bit more natural and less forced and "virtue signal-y".

So, what would be the opposite of virtue signalling, like when you ram your bigoted agenda about the excessive number of gay couples and women characters on the show down people's throats for years? Vice Signalling?

Lord Garth was suggesting that a gay character HAD to be seen to be in a relationship. I asked why that was? Why is it a requirement that a gay character is in a relationship?

Because that's a basic part of human behavior and dramatic writing, and one that no one blinks an eye about when two heterosexual characters are involved in a relationship, so the same should apply to two gay characters. But suddenly it becomes political or virtue signalling when that happens, when if it's hetero couples it is just treated as the norm or default.

Never ever said or even suggested there was an issue with them being a couple from day 1. Amazing how much is point-missing goes on these boards.

Another point missed. I'm gay myself. I don't care about them including gay characters

Nothing is being missed by anyone other than yourself. I'm sorry you are in a massive state of denial about this, but you so clearly do have a problem with gay and women characters or you wouldn't be droning on about it endlessly for years and treating simple representation like indoctrination or propaganda.

 

[Kpnuts]

Because that's a basic part of human behavior and dramatic writing

So why isn't Tilly in a relationship? Why wasn't Lorca or Pike? Saru or Cornwell?

I don't mind that Stamets was written to be in a relationship, I'm just wondering why it was necessary, as Lord Garth was suggesting. Just treat him the same as every other character and the world will be a better place. Same with the whole "not allowed to kill a gay character thing" for Culber, why not? Treat him like everyone else.

The rest of your post isn't worth commenting on, just completely wrong. Also, you tell me to move on, but then continue the discussion?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

So why isn't Tilly in a relationship? Why wasn't Lorca or Pike? Saru or Cornwell?

You seem to have difficulty finding a middle ground between all or nothing. It's not required that every character be in a relationship, but being part of one is perfectly normal and commonplace and not considered in any way noteworthy or political when it's a heterosexual couple instead of a gay one, so the reverse should also be true.

OG Lorca and Cornwell were in a prior relationship with each other that was briefly revisited with MU Lorca, and the less mentioned about Lorca and Burnham's relationship in the MU the better since his "grooming" of her since childhood as her father figure was mentioned. Pike had his thing with Vina. Tilly has talked about her prior relationships on a couple occasions. I'm not giving these as examples of fully-fledged couples like Worf and Dax, just bringing up that they were mentioned.

I don't mind that Stamets was written to be in a relationship, I'm just wondering why it was necessary, as Lord Garth was suggesting.

Because Star Trek, for all its real and alleged progressive bona fides, is way behind the times on the depiction of LGBTQ relationships (especially between two men) as just a normal thing on par with hetero relationships. They've played around the edges of it, by having it be with aliens and never lasting more than an episode, but always cowardly or insidiously shied away from fully committing to it or making it a part of the character's bio from the start.

Sorry, but no one who doesn't mind something spends three years constantly complaining about it to the point where it's (along with complaining about women characters getting too much positive attention) the primary message he's known for on the forum.

Just treat him the same as every other character and the world will be a better place. Same with the whole "not allowed to kill a gay character thing" for Culber, why not? Treat him like everyone else.

Showing two gay men in a relationship is "just treating them like every other character." Not that every character is given a relationship, just that you wouldn't think twice about it if they were. Travis Montgomery was a completely under-developed character and he was given multiple relationships. Harry Kim was given multiple relationships. Reginald Barclay was given relationships. Most of those were usually a catalyst for a plot development affecting the crew, but they got relationships and no one complained about how it was some kind of agenda.

The rest of your post isn't worth commenting on, just completely wrong. Also, you tell me to move on, but then continue the discussion?

You rambled on for ~fifteen posts on the subject in this thread, so yeah I'm going to rebut it. What I mean is I don't want every other thread during the next season to be derailed by you harping on this single issue over and over again like you have before. You've made your point. There are too many women getting positive attention, the men are all put upon and made to feel inferior, and depicting gay relationships is virtue signalling. Yada yada yada. We got it. Get a blog for that.

 

[Kpnuts]

You seem to have difficulty finding a middle ground between all or nothing. It's not required that every character be in a relationship

And you seem to have trouble grasping the point I'm trying to make. Lord Garth suggested it was necessary for a gay character to be in a relationship on the show. That's all I was questioning, why.

Time to move on.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Thank you.

 

[Noname Given]

So why isn't Tilly in a relationship? Why wasn't Lorca or Pike? Saru or Cornwell?

LOL - did you miss the scene in STD season 1 where Lorca and Cromwell SLEPT TOGETHER on screen, and talked about their past romantic relationship (which is why Cromwell decided to sleep with him in the first place?)

 

[eschaton]

How is the mere existence of LGBTQ people "political". They exist, they always have existed, always will exist. There is nothing political about the existence of a group, it's just part of being a human. Since Star Trek is about the human condition, that should be included.

Now wanting to create laws that hurt LGBTQ people is political and the fact that it still has a place in society just shows how far we have to go as a species and that has no place in Star Trek because bigotry like that is something that humans have grown out of.

I'd actually argue that representation is not really that political - assuredly it shouldn't be political. Though o course bigots disagree. That said, media companies typically pat themselves on the back for representation as having done the hard work of dealing with "issues" the writing mostly ignores.

I mean, I'm not sure Star Trek is the right place to address this stuff in general, since it's supposed to be an optimistic future where we're past all the "isms" and "phobias." That said, it does stick in my craw when you have a contemporary show with a token black friend (something unfortunately still rare IRL) where blackness is never remarked upon and racism is never actually addressed in plot. It's window dressing to make the white majority feel good about aspirational inclusion without doing the hard work of examining their own assumptions. But apparently the mere presence of people who aren't straight white males is still offensive to some, so baby steps I guess?

 

[eschaton]

Oh please - the whole idea that EVERY Star Trek episode made some sort of forward thinking political statement was made up mostly by GR - it's a myth. Yes, Star Trek (TOS) did OCCASIONALLY confront a topical political issue head on (and sometimes with a 'Sledge Hammer' approach that even back then I thought was a bit much); but it was maybe 3 or 4 episodes out of a 26 episode season.

Most of the time it was pretty much straight action/adventure with the occasional 'high concept' (for the era) science fiction situation <-- those occured with about the same frequency as the 'political commentary' episodes. Personally, I'm a little sick of how since the TNG era the writers all try to play the political aspect up (even when they too did do constant political commentary, with perhaps the exception of DS9).

IMO - Star Trek is BEST when it sticks to it;s premise that hey, this is a science fiction show about human (and aliens) in space - having ADVENTURES. I don't mind the occasional political commentary; but no (contrary to what GR would push AFTER the original series went off the air) - Star trek wasn't a show with constant 'political' episodes on the current issues of the day. It had such episodes occasionally - and IMO (and I LOVE TOS and think it's still the BEST and most original 'Star Trek' series) a number of those episodes were lacking in many ways where 'the message' was the thing for the episode; and the actual story/plot/characterization was secondary.

I dunno. While action-adventure is certainly part of the core of Star Trek, IMHO the continued exploration of themes beyond this is basically what sets the show apart from most other science fiction shows. It's of course not always explicitly political. But right from the beginning, twists like Charlie X ending the episode as a subject of pity, rather than a monster, or in Devil in the Dark, where we find out the monster is really humanity, showcase that Trek wanted to entertain us, but also wanted to make us think...to question our initial preconceptions.

 

[Noname Given]

I dunno. While action-adventure is certainly part of the core of Star Trek, IMHO the continued exploration of themes beyond this is basically what sets the show apart from most other science fiction shows. It's of course not always explicitly political. But right from the beginning, twists like Charlie X ending the episode as a subject of pity, rather than a monster, or in Devil in the Dark, where we find out the monster is really humanity, showcase that Trek wanted to entertain us, but also wanted to make us think...to question our initial preconceptions.

Yeah right no other science fiction show ever did political commentary... oh wait... there's that pesky show called:

"Rod Serling's - "The Twilight Zone"

Which was a show that either commented on the human condition, or made a political statement with practically every episode.

Look, I like Star Trek a lot, and it's still my favorite science fiction franchise. That said, Gene Roddenberry said and claimed a lot of stuff that was just plain BS.

1) It really wasn't his idea to have a multiracial crew aboard. That was a mandate from NBC, and it's advertisers who realize a lot of minorities actually had TV sets, and they wanted to appeal to that untapped market. If you look at the original pilot for Star Trek, it's very "Forbidden Planet" like, with all of the males being exceptional, young and white men; and the only reason there is a female second in command, is because she was the producer's girlfriend plus the majority of the other actresses were women GR got on his casting couch.

2) And began to reiterate, the frequency of direct political commentary on Star Trek (at least in the original series) was overblown by GR o play on the intellectual vanity of the fanbase at the time, and attempt to get another bite at the apple with Star Trek after it was canceled in 1969.

And it's just a fact that a lot of science fiction of the 1960ies from the Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, and The invaders, all did political commentary episodes from time to time. It was nothing unique to Star Trek, and not something that Star Trek started all by itself.

 

[Kpnuts]

LOL - did you miss the scene in STD season 1 where Lorca and Cromwell SLEPT TOGETHER on screen, and talked about their past romantic relationship (which is a white Cromwell decided to sleep with him in the first place?)

I'd forgotten about that actually, I don't really remember much about season 1 to be honest, all the episodes kind of blend into one, apart from those pointless MU episodes.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

And you seem to have trouble grasping the point I'm trying to make. Lord Garth suggested it was necessary for a gay character to be in a relationship on the show. That's all I was questioning, why.

Because if you don't show a man on TV in a gay relationship he is automatically assumed to be heterosexual. The only other option is to have the gay single man go round loads and talk about how he needs to find a man again because you need to point out your character is gay or else he isn't to most people sadly

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

LOL - did you miss the scene in STD season 1 where Lorca and Cromwell SLEPT TOGETHER on screen, and talked about their past romantic relationship (which is a white Cromwell decided to sleep with him in the first place?)

He didn't like that scene because it was more sledgehammering of women into the show. He is against 50/50 representation of women in Trek and prefers good old TOS where that scene would have been 2 men

 

[Kpnuts]

He didn't like that scene because it was more sledgehammering of women into the show. He is against 50/50 representation of women in Trek and prefers good old TOS where that scene would have been 2 men

Oh please. Kindly stop inventing things to suit you You know full well that's not what I'm saying, this whole time the only thing I've been advocating is a natural blend, 50/50.

 

[fireproof78]

IMO - Star Trek is BEST when it sticks to it;s premise that hey, this is a science fiction show about human (and aliens) in space - having ADVENTURES. I don't mind the occasional political commentary; but no (contrary to what GR would push AFTER the original series went off the air) - Star trek wasn't a show with constant 'political' episodes on the current issues of the day. It had such episodes occasionally - and IMO (and I LOVE TOS and think it's still the BEST and most original 'Star Trek' series) a number of those episodes were lacking in many ways where 'the message' was the thing for the episode; and the actual story/plot/characterization was secondary.

Indeed. Message shows can be so over done as to loose sight of the fact that stories are about characters.

 

[eschaton]

Indeed. Message shows can be so over done as to loose sight of the fact that stories are about characters.

I'd argue with the exception of Amok Time there were basically no character-based stories in TOS. Kirk/Spock/McCoy had distinct personalities which caused them to react in a certain way to the plots of the week, but ultimately the choice to focus on those stories was not done to inform us anything about them as characters.

 

[fireproof78]

I'd argue with the exception of Amok Time there were basically no character-based stories in TOS. Kirk/Spock/McCoy had distinct personalities which caused them to react in a certain way to the plots of the week, but ultimately the choice to focus on those stories was not done to inform us anything about them as characters.

I would argue that "Conscience of the King," "City on the Edge of Forever" "The Naked Time" all are character stories designed to show us the content of their character. I also don't think it is exclusive, that you can have their reactions to the events of the week while informing us about their character. And, even if it is just their reaction that is still about characters. That is how I relate to the events happening is through the characters, not in a cognitive abstract about the events themselves.

 

[eschaton]

I would argue that "Conscience of the King," "City on the Edge of Forever" "The Naked Time" all are character stories designed to show us the content of their character. I also don't think it is exclusive, that you can have their reactions to the events of the week while informing us about their character. And, even if it is just their reaction that is still about characters. That is how I relate to the events happening is through the characters, not in a cognitive abstract about the events themselves.

I don't know if I agree mainly because you can see that Kirk reacts the way he does because he's the captain and the hero of the show, not because of anything intrinsic to his character. Of course part of it is these are TOS Season 1 episodes, and Kirk was still a bit of a tabula rasa. Still, you could just as easily see Captain Pike (or someone else entirely) being put into these scenarios, perhaps not saying exactly the same things, but ultimately making the same key decisions.

To me a character-based story is one that starts out with the writer's room spitballing - how do we explore x facet of y character. In all of those cases, it seemed to be more how to plunk existing characters into an already-conceived story idea.

 

[fireproof78]

To me a character-based story is one that starts out with the writer's room spitballing - how do we explore x facet of y character. In all of those cases, it seemed to be more how to plunk existing characters into an already-conceived story idea.

I suppose.that's one way of looking at it, though I think "Conscience of the King" in particular hits that note very well.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Sort of. In VOY, they were trying to get home. In DSC S3, they can't ever go home. Because of canon Control.

Fair enough.
Similar concept - out time/space, limited resources, hostile/unknown environment, not sure who to trust, etc. etc.
Let's just hope they don't keep Tilly at her current rank for 7 years.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Fair enough.
Similar concept - out time/space, limited resources, hostile/unknown environment, not sure who to trust, etc. etc.
Let's just hope they don't keep Tilly at her current rank for 7 years.

Let's hope they do a Kes with Tilly and sideline her before dropping her off somewhere so we can be done with Wesley II