So we can’t have fantasies about the future rooted in what we know and live? That seems awfully restrictive creatively for no real reason.
Pre-2009 Star Trek and LGBTQI+ representation: simple disinterest or active hostility?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
- Status
So we can’t have fantasies about the future rooted in what we know and live? That seems awfully restrictive creatively for no real reason.
Hey, you want Future Space America, fine. Doctor Who does Space Britain for its British audiences and it works for them. Maybe just not have the American perspective be so pervasive that the characters are completely shocked when they see another way of life, especially when that way is based on another Earth culture.
Though I will admit that Trek's take on Space America is better than Firefly trying to say they live in a Chinese culture yet never showing any Asian people with a speaking role.
Though I will admit that Trek's take on Space America is better than Firefly trying to say they live in a Chinese culture yet never showing any Asian people with a speaking role.
I'm not offended, I just think it looks stupid to see a Frenchman played by an Englishman shocked to see someone lives their life different than the American norm.
Okay, maybe "stupid" is a bit harsh. Kind of funny in a "do you even realize what's happening here?" sense.
Okay, maybe "stupid" is a bit harsh. Kind of funny in a "do you even realize what's happening here?" sense.
I’ve always held that when you watch Star Trek you have to realize that it’s an US-American production made for an US-American audience. Certainly that was the case before the current era of shows made for international streaming. And I think that that is fine.
It’s certainly nice and appreciated when they manage to portray a future that feels more international and diverse, but at the end of the day it’s a TV show and not a realistic extrapolation of what the real future will or should look like. I’m personally taking what I see presented in the shows as less literal. In other words, I’m suspending my disbelief and focus on the story being told and the messages they might try to convey. I have a hard time seeing it as “ignorance” when US-American writers decide they want to portray military structures or court proceedings in a way that’s going to be familiar to their US-American audience. That their court episodes feel like Law & Order isn’t by accident. I agree that that leads to a perception of Starfleet as “US-Americans in space”, but I don’t find that as problematic.
————
I rewatched Voyager’s “Warlord” last night, because I was curious how they were managing the implications of a male character presenting in a female body. I think the most objectionable parts to my 21st century ears were how they constantly refer to Kes — a grown-up woman in the context of the show — as a “little girl” in a pejorative way. It also doesn’t really make sense in the reality of the episode, if you think about it, because Tieran is benefiting from her mental abilities throughout the entire story. But okay, I get that they had him say that to make him more obviously evil.
There’s a moment almost at the end where Tieran-Kes is implying he wants to have a threesome with his wife and new husband, which certainly feels like the writers playing up bisexuality or polyamory as a “deviant” and “evil” trait, much in the same way Deep Space Nine portrays lesbians in the Mirror Universe.
Just in general it’s interesting to note that if you think about it the situation is basically like Kes becoming a survivor of physical/sexual assault, which of course the episode doesn’t acknowledge. But then again, Kes is instrumental in breaking herself free from Tieran’s attack, so in that way it’s also pretty strong. This is one of these moments where the Reset Button premise of the show kinda works against the strength of the plot, because realistically Kes would have to deal with this well beyond this one episode.
————
On Enterprise they also had “Cogenitor”, another attempt at tackling LGBTQ+ issues I didn’t see anyone mention yet. The cogenitor is clearly a stand in for non-binary people, even though they seem to muddle sex and gender again. Haven’t watched it in a million year, but I remember general liking it/finding it powerful. Even though the ending doesn't make Archer look particularly good, as Jessie Gender criticizes. Will give that one a rewatch too as soon as I can to see how I feel about it today.
It’s certainly nice and appreciated when they manage to portray a future that feels more international and diverse, but at the end of the day it’s a TV show and not a realistic extrapolation of what the real future will or should look like. I’m personally taking what I see presented in the shows as less literal. In other words, I’m suspending my disbelief and focus on the story being told and the messages they might try to convey. I have a hard time seeing it as “ignorance” when US-American writers decide they want to portray military structures or court proceedings in a way that’s going to be familiar to their US-American audience. That their court episodes feel like Law & Order isn’t by accident. I agree that that leads to a perception of Starfleet as “US-Americans in space”, but I don’t find that as problematic.
————
I rewatched Voyager’s “Warlord” last night, because I was curious how they were managing the implications of a male character presenting in a female body. I think the most objectionable parts to my 21st century ears were how they constantly refer to Kes — a grown-up woman in the context of the show — as a “little girl” in a pejorative way. It also doesn’t really make sense in the reality of the episode, if you think about it, because Tieran is benefiting from her mental abilities throughout the entire story. But okay, I get that they had him say that to make him more obviously evil.
There’s a moment almost at the end where Tieran-Kes is implying he wants to have a threesome with his wife and new husband, which certainly feels like the writers playing up bisexuality or polyamory as a “deviant” and “evil” trait, much in the same way Deep Space Nine portrays lesbians in the Mirror Universe.
Just in general it’s interesting to note that if you think about it the situation is basically like Kes becoming a survivor of physical/sexual assault, which of course the episode doesn’t acknowledge. But then again, Kes is instrumental in breaking herself free from Tieran’s attack, so in that way it’s also pretty strong. This is one of these moments where the Reset Button premise of the show kinda works against the strength of the plot, because realistically Kes would have to deal with this well beyond this one episode.
————
On Enterprise they also had “Cogenitor”, another attempt at tackling LGBTQ+ issues I didn’t see anyone mention yet. The cogenitor is clearly a stand in for non-binary people, even though they seem to muddle sex and gender again. Haven’t watched it in a million year, but I remember general liking it/finding it powerful. Even though the ending doesn't make Archer look particularly good, as Jessie Gender criticizes. Will give that one a rewatch too as soon as I can to see how I feel about it today.
I admit I've never seen it and I don't feel like judging it just by the synopsis, I'm very curious to hear your comments on it!
Yet, the character ends up being one of the most memorable in the franchise.
Can definitely recommend giving it a watch. Even if some of its portrayal of a non-binary coded individual might seem off and the ending unfortunately plays into the alarming reality of how LGBTQ+ people often end up in real life, it’s pretty strong from a dramatic standpoint. It’s one of the reasons why early on Trip became one of my favorite characters of that show. Simply put, he’s the only one in the episode who instinctively is doing the right thing.
It's interesting how humans of the future are so open and accepting of alien cultures and customs different from their own. Except for non-US terrestrial ones. Those must die and be erased from history.
I never really thought of Cogenitor as an LGBT allegory, even though the titular cogenitor is basically a non-binary person. The episode is basically about an alien society that has its own slave citizens, and Trip decide to make a stand against that.
Cogenitor is actually a somewhat enjoyable episode, though the ending is really a disservice to it. After being forced to return to a life of slavery after tasting freedom they could have in any other society, the cogenitor commits suicide. So with an individual dead, a couple unable to start a family, and relations with a potential ally probably screwed over, Archer sits Trip down to deliver a fatherly "I'm not angry, just really disappointed" talk. Okay.
Allegorical probably only by accident. It’s not really about a “third gender”, but it’s interesting how it challenges the audiences notions of the male/female dichotomy. And I appreciate that they were able to avoid any huge blunders in that portrayal. It’s a good thing, for example, that they didn’t write it as Trip and Charles falling in love. Because that would have been a little weird in a story about what’s essentially the victim of sexual exploitation and slavery.
And yes, Archer doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the end of the episode. As often with 90s/00s TV Trek they bit off more than they could chew with that topic and a 42 minute runtime.
Then there are surely other shows out there built more too your liking?
I love Star Trek. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. But I don't understand why it should be critic-proof. Every single episode of the franchise is a 5 star masterpiece and anyone who says otherwise needs to stop watching it?
Picking on it for being an American show displaying American values just seems odd to me. It would be like me picking on Space Battleship Yamato for having a decidedly Japanese vibe.
SBY doesn't pretend to be the Ambassador of universal values and acceptance. Star Trek does.
Precisely. The show plays to its intended audience.
I remember watching that video and thinking FINALLY! Someone else gets it! The normal sentiment, at least in the discussions I was part of, was to defend Archer's actions, excuse the chief engineer and his wife's treatment of the cogenitor as "their culture", and believe that Charles was better off ignorant.
Again, right. Someone once said that Trip did the wrong thing in the wrong way in this one. I disagree. Yes, maybe he did it in the wrong way, but standing up for the rights of an enslaved person or group is not the wrong thing to do.
It certainly was a grim ending, but I will say that at least it tried to be realistic. I'm still trying to come up with a better way to end it...
- Charles stays onboard? I think it's doable. The Vissians might have been enlightened enough not to either blast Enterprise from the heavens or use their technology to take Charles back by force. But the last two downsides (couple doesn't start a family, relations with ally screwed up) still happen.
- Charles goes willingly back to slavery and oppression. Some would consider that a fate worse than death.
- The Vissians agree as a group that cogenitors need to be treated better. That's certainly a happy ending, but reminds me of DS9 and "Ishka waves her magic wand and POOF! Ferengi women go from essentially livestock to full equality".
I just think there should have been more consequences for Trip other than a stern talking to. I mean, yes, we can infer that Trip will be ridden with guilt over the matter and that is punishment enough, though given the episodic nature of Enterprise S2, we never see that reflected afterwards, instead making it look like "well, let's put that unpleasant stuff from last week behind us and move onto this week's adventure."
To an American audience.
I am sorry. Complaining about Star Trek as too American is simply…
There is really no polite way to put it.
I think that whatever Archer said in their conversation, he understood that this was not just on Trip.
- Yes, Trip taught Charles to read, causing her to realize the truth of her situation.
- Archer returned her to the Vissians, knowing that he was returning a sentient to a life of slavery. Trip said "you're not responsible"... but he was, and he knew it.
- The chief engineer and his wife were the ones carrying out the enslavement. They undoubtedly resumed it with a vengeance, once Charles was back onboard.
- The Vissian captain knew what Charles was returning to, but still appealed to Archer to return her.
- And Charles was an intelligent, sentient being. The decision to terminate life was ultimately made and carried out by her.
Regardless of who you think was the most culpable (and it's like one of those "who was most responsible" mental exercises you see turn up from place to place), everyone bore a share.
My impression isn't that the Enterprise crew isn't surprised by Bajors name tradition. Only that Ro is following the traditional approach because many Bajorians who have assimilated into other cultures have allowed their traditions be distorted to fit in. Ro going by the traditional name would be like one of those immigrants who changed their names at Ells Island refusing to go by her changed named. I suppose one could say it makes no sense that anyone would pressure them to change their names but then you can't do the drama of the situation.
Also why should Trek stop pretending to be about a United Earth? Just make the needed changes that reflect different human customs into modern shows. Starfleet still being like the military does make sense though because I am guessing the way a military works is more or less the same everywhere. Chain of Command with ranks. Lots of discipline etc.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
