Norman, coordinate.
That’s not how it works. To know something about a fictional character it has to be shown or said. Or even hinted at. So, I’m gonna have to dock you a few “knows good writing points” for that one.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
It never sounded natural to me when she did at least in the episodes. Something about it.
Yes, but they still have to be acknowledged as such. These are not real people but constructs who need to be stated as being to inform the audience, rather than the audience assuming traits about them. So, the lack of commentary, especially in TNG and ENT, is especially egregious because it assumes a status quo that requires no information to the audience. Which is not helpful when people want to see and feel inclusivity and more than just "We have multiple skin colors on the bridge."
What, of Enterprise's main cast? No, the only one of them who isn't shown to be definitively heterosexual is Phlox, who might be bisexual/pansexual given in A Night in Sickbay he makes a comment implying (rather obviously, at that) that he's been involved with some of his wives' other husbands. But based on Archer's reaction to that, it seems to Archer anyway heterosexuality was considered the norm among 22nd century humans. Which I always found especially odd, given Bakula was one of the more vocal during Enterprise's run about how there should be a gay character on the show.
But I as the viewer, can imagine that in the future depicted in the show there are all sorts of sexualities without it being stated out loud. I can fill in the gaps myself, I’m not some child that needs everything explained to them.
I simply don’t understand how a fan could assume that heterosexuality was the norm in the 22nd century. That’s the fan just putting their own spin on it.
Not everyone thinks like you do, nor is it wise to assume the audience can figure stuff out. Can you do that? Absolutely, but it's a risk and it leads to misunderstandings. Again, to my previous example, Brooklyn 99 is explicit in dialog about different backgrounds of people. It doesn't leave it to the imagination. So, while I can fill in the gaps myself, that also means my own spin might be wrong to what the writers want. Clarity is better than presumption.
Go and watch the scene in Night in Sickbay where Phlox talks about loving his whole family, and take not of the reaction on Archer's face when Phlox adds "even the other husbands." Seems like the only interpretation is that heterosexuality is what Archer considers normal.
I get that but I appreciate being treated like a person first instead of Paramount going: hurr durr we love gays buy our product. I don’t appreciate being commodified.
Small metal walkways minimum safety requirements were allowed to fall in the 23rd century, quite literally. 
I can’t find that scene on YouTube at the moment
You don't have it memorized? It's been four and a half years since I last watched that episode, and I still remember it quite well. And I've been dirtying myself with Nu Trek in the mean time, watching and rewatching it.
I would think one who devotes themself exclusively to 1966-2005 era would, you know, have that era memorized?
Again, this is a completely dishonest characterization of reality - not to mention a nearly unintelligibly-punctuated sentence.
Your recent posts consist largely of straw men and incoherent fantasies describing things that are not so. You aver that you're offended that your opinions aren't treated with unearned respect; I'd be shocked if anyone capable of parsing them and thinking clearly about what you claim could find anything respectable in them.
To be fair to Archer, that reaction could very well be the fact it's multiple wives and husbands. I find the idea of having multiple wives daunting, never mind multiples of both genders. It may simply be just too many cooks in the kitchen for Archer's taste, and I can't say I blame him.
I don't understand how acknowledging people and the variety they come in is anything like that at all. To me, and for me, just give me people, and tell me about them and their adventures, including their ups, downs, backs and forths, and yes even their preferences or romantic interests. Because that's all apart of real humans in real life. Something, something, the human adventure is just beginning.
Also, I would not recommend using IDIC or it's symbol as Roddenberry definitely turned that in to a commodity.
Every single Star Trek show made before 2017 makes it clear. It's fans obsessing over Kirk/Spock and Bashir/Garak subtext, which is often entirely in their heads (and in the latter case curb stomped canonically when TPTB caught wind), that is the only thing saying otherwise.
Good point. People see a lot of things, and not everyone sees it the same way.
I'm a prime example of that: I love ST 09 because it illustrates the need that Kirk had for a father figure in his life to become the leader he was in TOS. To me, that's validating a lot psychological research about the importance of mentors and fathers and the impact it has on development. I could probably write short research article on it, if so inclined.
Others see Kirk in the Kelvin Films as a jackass who is unworthy of the name of Kirk.
Who is right?
Written like a straight person masquerading as LGBTQ+.
Representation matters for a shit-ton of reasons I don't feel worth lecturing you about. Suffice to say I subscribe to Harvey Fierstein's maxim: Visibility at any cost.
The IDIC symbol was created specifically as a commercial commodity and shoehorned into the show to sell pendants. Reportedly this was actually in response to viewer demand for such stuff. But the philosophical concept certainly didn't have much in common with anything that had been depicted about Vulcan beliefs before that (or after, for that matter).
I wonder how large Denobulan extended families can get, if males typically have three wives and females typically have three husbands. Is it within the realm of conceivability that just about everyone on the planet is 'related by marriage?'
Kor
Multiple spouses don't seem to be commonplace amongst humans of the future in Trek. Perhaps Archer was thinking that such a family structure would have a lot of rivalry and jealousy, not love among the spouses of the same gender.
I wonder how large Denobulan extended families can get, if males typically have three wives and females typically have three husbands. Is it within the realm of conceivability that just about everyone on the planet is 'related by marriage?'
Kor
Are you really going to get away with this?
Except Phlox had already mentioned having three wives several times in the episode (including earlier in this very scene) and Archer didn't react at all. It was only Phlox mentioning he loves the other husbands that got a reaction out of Archer.
Similar threads
- Locked
