Was a Rick Berman a bad choice to run the Star Trek Franchise after Gene Roddenberry died?

I believe you. Indeed, for homosexuality to go from illegal to mainstream in less than 50 years, it took some major doing, politically and socially alike. I carefully watched the way the press campaigned for its acceptance... it was ingeniously managed.

However, opposition to homosexuality died hard among some demographics. Look at "Hot Tub Time Machine", a movie made barely ten years ago. Homophobia was still being played for laughs even then. So, while I'm not condoning anything, I can at least understand why the powers that be at Star Trek were hesitant in that regard.

 

I also think during most of the Berman-Trek years homosexuality on TV just wasn't a thing. I never got the impression there was any gay bashing going on in any of the stories. There was that one episode of DS9 (I forget the name of the episode offhand) where Jadzia met up with a former spouse who now is also female. In that case the issues were with relationships with former hosts. No issues were ever brought up about them both being women. Dr. Crusher ran into a similar situation with Odin in TNG, and the new host was a woman and she just can't adjust. But even there, it's not just that the new host is a woman, but that it was the 3rd change she had to deal with in a short time. She even said as much, and it's understandable. Hell, I can understand it if she couldn't adjust to having a relationship with a woman if she is straight. So the very few times Star Trek has brought it up in the Berman era it wasn't treated as anything abnormal. In one case (TNG), the problems were more the changes in host in a short period of time, and in the other (DS9) it's a total non-issue.

But at that time on TV homosexuality just wasn't something shown on TV much of the time. And at that time it wasn't expected to be by the masses, which is my point I guess. I'm always leery to apply today's standards to shows made years and decades ago. I grew up watching TNG when it was first on, and later DS9, and the TV landscape at that time was just a lot different. Star Trek pushed some envelopes and not others.

 

That's just it, Star Trek has a reputation for being all-inclusive and pushing envelopes and being socially progressive. TOS is credited as featuring television's first interracial kiss, although that claim is in fact false since there were plenty of interracial kisses on TV prior to Kirk and Uhura kissing in Plato's Stepchildren, even TOS itself had other interracial kisses. Nevertheless, TOS is still what everyone think of when it comes to TV's first interracial kiss. Including a gay character on TNG would actually be all-inclusive, envelope pushing and socially progressive that the Trek franchise has the reputation of being. Instead, Star Trek turned into a dinosaur by not featuring a homosexual in the franchise until 2016, years even close to two whole decades after homosexuals became common in mainstream American television.

It's not even completely accurate to say homosexuality wasn't a thing on TV during the Berman era. Maybe during TNG that was the case, but that's just seven years out of the eighteen Berman was running the franchise. At the very least, there's the previously mentioned example of Will and Grace, a show with a gay character as titular co-lead which premiered during DS9's final season and Voyager's fifth, so the argument can be made that homosexuality was very much a thing while DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were on the air, or in other words, 3/4 Berman era.

And that's before we get into the complete and utter insult the Berman era gave to the gay community by homosexuality was very much a thing in the Mirror Universe. Which meant the TV show with a reputation of showing a positive future where all facets of humanity work together only showed homosexuals in the alternate universe where Star Trek had turned evil and wrong. Just what the hell kind of message was the sending? I suppose an argument can be made that wasn't necessarily their intent when they made those episodes, but considering their actual intent was just to fetishize lesbians, that's not much of a defense.

 

I mean, my wife and I are rewatching a 80s sitcom and there has been both a trans-woman and a lesbian and the people who have difficulty with it are considered in the wrong, even if they are the main characters. Of course, it is played for comedy but certainly not as bad.

 

QUOTE: And that's before we get into the complete and utter insult the Berman era gave to the gay community by homosexuality was very much a thing in the Mirror Universe.

In light of that, I wonder what they were thinking as well. The girl-on-girl kissing undoubtedly pissed off the anti-gay crowd, and the fetishization was probably equally repellent to those on the other side. And, given that Berman had little to do with DS9 (hence the serialized storylines, fewer reset button uses, and characters who actually developed), we can't really lay it on him.

 

The Golden Girls had heaps of LGBT-centered stories, and that show was deep 1980s, and they didn't turn the people into things to laugh at either.
Like, when Blanche's brother came out as gay, the jokes were mostly about Blanche's inability to accept it.
So, Golden Girls was more risk taking than TNG was. And that's a fact.

But from what I have read, I also got the impression that the 1980s were a more conservative time than the 1970s. Not just in the general public's view of the LGBT community, but also in things like women's lib and the view of women in the workforce and things like that.

The usage of lesbian couples to tickle the interest of the male audience (rather than for the sake of portraying homosexual women as full characters), remains a problem to this day. Yeah, it was no coincidence that the only same-sex kiss in 90s Trek was between two perfectly feminine, very attractive young women.

 

Actually, no. Although Rejoined faced backlash in the Bible Belt States with many either editing the kiss scene out or just outright refusing to air the episode, there was no controversy over The Emperor's New Cloak, with everyone airing it, and no one editing anything out.

 

Maybe it was because Khan and Dax were divorced.

Divorced from each other.

God and the state, both told them to smooch other women.

 

They weren't divorced. Torias was killed in a shuttle accident. Kahn's previous host was a widow.

 

I think Berman’s main issue is that he was trapped between the posts of maintaining Roddenberry’s legacy and cowtowing to the network, whilst having very little vision of his own as to what Star Trek should be. He did however oversee a LOT of good episodes.

 

That kind of pseudo-lesbian girl-on-girl kissing, played for laughs and giggles and the titillation of men, rarely pisses even the most anti-gay guys off. Sometimes officially, yes.

I think what I lay on him is that he either wasn't interested in being inclusive with the queer community, or he was afraid to do so. Mulgrew has mentioned she asked for a gay character to be included on Voyager several times.

As others have pointed out, Trek simply was never as progressive as it claimed to be. And certainly not in the Berman era. Until Discovery, which is the first show to get serious about ethnic as well as glbqt+ community.

As for DS9, I watched an interview with Behr, probably on The 7th Rule, last year. He mentioned that Andrew Robinson suggested it to him, but that he never even considered taking up that fight with the studios. In hindsight, he regretted it. I appreciated his self-reflection and honesty.

 

My main points are first, you can't do it all. No show, no matter how progressive, is going to cover every issue. Someone's going to get missed from time to time. And my 2nd was at that point in time, pushing an LGBT agenda just wasn't a thing yet. Yes, you can point out shows that had homosexual characters. But those were largely the exceptions, as a general rule at that time showing homosexuals on TV shows just wasn't a priority for Hollywood. And we honestly don't know what Paramount's position was at the time. A lot of studios at that time may have said, 'um, no, we're not doing that'.

I'm neither defending Berman Trek or condemning it on this particular issue. I'm just looking on it from the lens I saw it through growing up, and during the 1990s homosexuality was just not a major issue studios were jumping on en masse. Today, franchises are almost considered homophobic if they don't have a homosexual character somewhere. Back then it just wasn't the same. Now by the early 2000s, sure, I think you could make an argument there, but during most of the Berman years through the 1990s, not so much.

 

So do I, btw.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. The majority of shows still don't have queer characters (even though it often feels otherwise to people who were used to hardly any show having them), but I don't see them being called homophobic... Well, not for *that* alone.

And of course it was different in the 90s. But to be honest, I don't see much courage in any regard in 90s Trek. (Can't speak for ENT, as I didn't try very hard to get into it... But if I had to guess, it was worse in this regard.) That's OK, it had other qualities, but it's just what it is.

 

I always think about Friends and how different that show would be in today's climate. These days you would never get a sitcom about 6 straight, white, middle class people and their various troubles etc. It doesn't take away from the fact that representation should have been pushed much earlier on television than it was, but Star Trek is no more or no less an outlier in not doing so.

 

Probably fair. The original series is held up as a paragon, but in many ways it too was a product of it's time. It's probably more accurate to say Star Trek did push some envelopes, having a Black woman on the bridge for example, or a Russian by season 2. But in other ways it was like a lot of shows in the 1960s. Berman Trek was probably no better or worse than its progenitor show. It pushed a few boundaries, but was largely a product of its time. Homosexuality just wasn't one of the boundaries it pushed. Even current Trek, they now have a homosexual in a key role on Discovery, but I'm not sure I'd call that pushing any boundaries because it's more common today on TV. It's not really breaking any new ground, other than having homosexuals as a main character in a "Star Trek" show.

Ok, maybe I was exaggerating a little bit I was just trying to contrast today with the 1990s.

 

There was no network until Voyager. TNG and DS9 were direct syndication model.

You have to remember when the term was used. In 60s America "interracial" by default meant black-white.

On CBS East Side/West Side had a black woman secretary—Cicely Tyson—as a main cast member in 1963, three years before Uhura, and on NBC The Man From U.N.C.L.E. has a "Russian" as co-lead before Trek hit the airwaves. The year before Trek bowed NBC's I Spy had a black male co-lead and CBS also had a black member of the regular cast of Hogan's Heroes the same year. and Mission: Impossible had a black member of the team who was treated as equal to the others.

Star Trek was riding a progressive wave, but it never really was at the front of it.

 

The next host is going to show up to Khans place to pick up their stuff.

"Break up sex?"

"It's forbidden."

"But we are still married!"

"Till death do us part."

"I didn't die. Well, some of me didn't die."

I watched a Documentary recently called Visible Out.



No one told me that Raymond Burr was gay.

Biggest name on TV for 20 years, keeping a huge secret.

Clever lad.

 

man people are getting heated in here I just think he was a bad writer and a horndog

 

Heated? This is lukewarm for a discussion here.

 

I'm very chill kind of person with Trek