Berman Memoirs

[BillJ]

Andy: Thanks for the links. But I'm not sure they help you're case. At worst it shows Star trek being marketed to two different types of crowds. Mainstream and those who buy the merchandise...

The mainstream audience that made Soap, a soap opera parody sitcom in the 1970s, a huge hit? With Billy Crystal, the guy who played a gay character, becoming the show's big breakout star? The mainstream audience that made Will & Grace one of the most popular sitcoms on TV for several years? That mainstream audience is worried about gay characters?

Or do you mean the mainstream SF-watching audience? Who manage to watch LGBT characters in Doctor Who, Buffy, Torchwood, Galactica....

All I know is that Star Trek became very conservative when re-incarnated for TV. Can you honestly name an actress who was a scantily clad as some of the women from TOS. And I never said it was a good thing (if you read the whole post), just that it doesn't necessarily stem from bigotry.

 

[Sci]

1. The word is "homosexuality," not "homo-sexuality."

Proud of yourself for catching that one...

Not particularly. I just get irritated by obvious ignorance of how to properly spell a simple word.

By your logic, TOS shouldn't have featured any Asians or blacks in its cast -- because, after all, it was a show for a mainstream audience at the time.

That's utter bullshit and you know it. Star Trek wasn't a billion dollar franchise at that point.

So the fuck what? If anything, the fact that Trek had become more popular means that it had a greater obligation to depict LGBTs and to depict them in the same light it depicted straight characters. And the fact that TOS had not been a multi-billion dollar franchise at its point means that its decision to showcase minorities was all the more courageous, since it's not like it had a huge fanbase to support it if it became controversial.

The fact is that as Trek became more popular, its producers lost their spines and were less willing to stand up for what is right, and that's sad, since part of TOS's legacy was its willingness to fight racism just by the simple fact of having minority characters in its cast. Mind you, TOS didn't fight it perfectly -- more than a few people have commented that it basically had an Asian driver and a black telephone operator in Sulu and Uhura --, but it at least tried to do the right thing, which is far more than Berman-era Trek can say with regards to its depictions of LGBT individuals.

 

[BillJ]

1. The word is "homosexuality," not "homo-sexuality."

Proud of yourself for catching that one...

Not particularly. I just get irritated by obvious ignorance of how to properly spell a simple word.

By your logic, TOS shouldn't have featured any Asians or blacks in its cast -- because, after all, it was a show for a mainstream audience at the time.

That's utter bullshit and you know it. Star Trek wasn't a billion dollar franchise at that point.

So the fuck what? If anything, the fact that Trek had become more popular means that it had a greater obligation to depict LGBTs and to depict them in the same light it depicted straight characters. And the fact that TOS had not been a multi-billion dollar franchise at its point means that its decision to showcase minorities was all the more courageous, since it's not like it had a huge fanbase to support it if it became controversial.

The fact is that as Trek became more popular, its producers lost their spines and were less willing to stand up for what is right, and that's sad, since part of TOS's legacy was its willingness to fight racism just by the simple fact of having minority characters in its cast. Mind you, TOS didn't fight it perfectly -- more than a few people have commented that it basically had an Asian driver and a black telephone operator in Sulu and Uhura --, but it at least tried to do the right thing, which is far more than Berman-era Trek can say with regards to its depictions of LGBT individuals.

The only obligation a TV series has, is to make money for the production company making it. Grow up.

 

[Sci]

So the fuck what? If anything, the fact that Trek had become more popular means that it had a greater obligation to depict LGBTs and to depict them in the same light it depicted straight characters. And the fact that TOS had not been a multi-billion dollar franchise at its point means that its decision to showcase minorities was all the more courageous, since it's not like it had a huge fanbase to support it if it became controversial.

The fact is that as Trek became more popular, its producers lost their spines and were less willing to stand up for what is right, and that's sad, since part of TOS's legacy was its willingness to fight racism just by the simple fact of having minority characters in its cast. Mind you, TOS didn't fight it perfectly -- more than a few people have commented that it basically had an Asian driver and a black telephone operator in Sulu and Uhura --, but it at least tried to do the right thing, which is far more than Berman-era Trek can say with regards to its depictions of LGBT individuals.

The only obligation a TV series has, is to make money for the production company making it. Grow up.

Certainly Trek had an obligation to make money. No one is contesting that.

To argue that that was its only obligation is bizarre, though. First off, everyone has a moral obligation to accept LGBT individuals as equals and to let go of prejudice, whether you're making a TV show or working at a shopping mall. And anyone creating a work of art has a moral obligation to equitably depict different religions, ethnicities, nationalities, and sexual orientations.

Secondly, Star Trek, like many works of art, had always set for itself a moral standard: This was a program that was about something other than just making money for the studio. It was a show about tolerance and diversity and equality and freedom. IDIC. This was a show with a fundamentally moral political message hidden behind the tribbles and the phasers, and the fact that, at least with regards to LGBT individuals, Berman abandoned that moral obligation is sad and a betrayal of Trek's legacy.

Now, mind you, Rick Berman is not the author of all miseries. He made a lot of excellent creative choices, and he was absolutely dedicated to trying to turn out a quality product -- though I would argue that his ability to do that diminished over time due to creative burn-out. It's important that we not demonize him.

But by the same token, I'm sorry, but he had more moral obligations than just making money. We all do.

And I'll make you a deal: I'll grow up as soon as you stop defending heterosexism.

 

[Andrew Harris]

I put two gay characters in Star Trek: The Last Generation--one of whom had been a series regular--and the relationship at one point becomes central to the story, but during the approvals process I never heard a single objection about it from CBS/Paramount, for what that's worth.

I think part of the question here is that being gay is regarded as something that makes you part of a "group" rather than part of something that makes you an individual. In other words, the way that Star Trek treats aliens, rather than the way it treats characters.

THANK YOU for the inclusion, and your words. I'll be sure to check out 'The Last Generation' ASAP. I just preordered the July 2009 Graphic Novel from Amazon.

Thanks, hope you like it.

You should also check out KRAD's old series from Wildstorm, Perchance to Dream, since he tackles this very same question through the clever metaphorical device of a species with three genders. I think it's collected in the omnibus volume Enemy Unseen with a couple of other Wildstorm series.

 

[Steve Roby]

Oh Yay. The bandwagon-jumping Berman bashers are out again in full force. "He banned gays!!!" etc. Until some one shows me proof, I call BS.

You missed Andy Mangels's post?

the guy did some amazing things for Star Trek. In fact, he pretty much WAS Trek throughout the 1990s (and yes, appointing people like Ira Behr was his decision) - for both good and bad.

Absolutely. But that he did both good and bad doesn't mean we can't talk about the bad.

If Berman wrote a candid and honest book about his Trek years, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I don't know if he will, though. Shame Michael Piller's book was never published...

 

[BillJ]

And I'll make you a deal: I'll grow up as soon as you stop defending heterosexism.

The problem is that not every TV series is obligated to depict a gay character. It's the beauty of TV... if you don't like it, turn it off. Find something else to spend your time and money on.

About the only thing I find Rick Berman guilty of is creative burn-out. He created three Trek series and had a black man and a woman as the leads in two of them. If only the whole world was so "bigoted".

 

[Steve Roby]

The only obligation a TV series has, is to make money for the production company making it. Grow up.

We're talking about Star Trek here. The people who made the show have always proudly spoken of the show's progressive politics. Even though they didn't always live up to that, they made a point of talking about it. There's nothing wrong with expecting them to live up to the ideals they claim to stand for.

The problem is that not every TV series is obligated to depict a gay character. It's the beauty of TV... if you don't like it, turn it off. Find something else to spend your time and money on.

About the only thing I find Rick Berman guilty of is creative burn-out. He created three Trek series and had a black man and a woman as the leads in two of them. If only the whole world was so "bigoted".

Maybe I'm misreading you here, but the impression I get is that you see discrimination on the basis of sexual preference as a different kind of thing from discrimination on the basis of race or gender, and that's why you're dismissive of the idea that Berman could be any kind of bigot. Is that right?

 

[Sci]

And I'll make you a deal: I'll grow up as soon as you stop defending heterosexism.

The problem is that not every TV series is obligated to depict a gay character.

I agree completely: A TV show is obligated to depict characters that are right for the story it's telling -- though, if its focus isn't incredibly narrow, this means that it will inevitably need to depict LGBT individuals at some point. But every TV series does have an obligation to depict LGBT sexualities as being equal to heterosexuality.

And a TV series that originated as one that was specifically about diversity and tolerance, and which still purported itself to be about that in its PR, is obligated to depict LGBT characters.

About the only thing I find Rick Berman guilty of is creative burn-out. He created three Trek series and had a black man and a woman as the leads in two of them. If only the whole world was so "bigoted".

And if you'll look above, one of the things you'll note is that I said it's important not to simply assume Berman is a bigot. While it's clear that he's at the very least a "heterocentrist," it's not fair to assume he's an out and out bigot on the basis of the information we have.

 

[BillJ]

About the only thing I find Rick Berman guilty of is creative burn-out. He created three Trek series and had a black man and a woman as the leads in two of them. If only the whole world was so "bigoted".

And if you'll look above, one of the things you'll note is that I said it's important not to simply assume Berman is a bigot. While it's clear that he's at the very least a "heterocentrist," it's not fair to assume he's an out and out bigot on the basis of the information we have.

Which is the point I've been trying to make from the get-go. I don't even think you can prove he is 'heterocentrist' from the information we have. We honestly have no idea what went on behind closed doors. We have no idea what kind of fight he had in casting Avery Brooks and Kate Mulgrew as leads. Perhaps he just no longer had the fight in him. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

 

[Sci]

About the only thing I find Rick Berman guilty of is creative burn-out. He created three Trek series and had a black man and a woman as the leads in two of them. If only the whole world was so "bigoted".

And if you'll look above, one of the things you'll note is that I said it's important not to simply assume Berman is a bigot. While it's clear that he's at the very least a "heterocentrist," it's not fair to assume he's an out and out bigot on the basis of the information we have.

Which is the point I've been trying to make from the get-go. I don't even think you can prove he is 'heterocentrist' from the information we have. We honestly have no idea what went on behind closed doors. We have no idea what kind of fight he had in casting Avery Brooks and Kate Mulgrew as leads. Perhaps he just no longer had the fight in him. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Which is fair enough -- maybe he was progressive on every other issue but this. But the simple act of refusing to depict LGBT individuals, of refusing to allow filmed Trek to even acknowledge their existence, is an act of, at best, "heterocentricity." Now, the guy, for all I know, may be a regular donator to GLAAD and The Advocate. But on this issue, the creative choice he made was deeply, for want of a better word, "heterocentric;" this particular creative choice was one that complied with the heterosexist system of thought that permeates much of American culture.

I'm not saying we should make him wear a "Scarlet 'H'" on his chest for the rest of his life, but we shouldn't make excuses for immoral creative choices, either.

 

[BillJ]

The only obligation a TV series has, is to make money for the production company making it. Grow up.

We're talking about Star Trek here. The people who made the show have always proudly spoken of the show's progressive politics. Even though they didn't always live up to that, they made a point of talking about it. There's nothing wrong with expecting them to live up to the ideals they claim to stand for.

Roddenberry took up the philosophy angle when he saw the fans eating it up. Let's see he was sleeping with Nichols, sleeping with Barrett and God knows he may have been sleeping with Takei. That's your diversity, casting couch diversity.

The problem is that not every TV series is obligated to depict a gay character. It's the beauty of TV... if you don't like it, turn it off. Find something else to spend your time and money on.

About the only thing I find Rick Berman guilty of is creative burn-out. He created three Trek series and had a black man and a woman as the leads in two of them. If only the whole world was so "bigoted".

Maybe I'm misreading you here, but the impression I get is that you see discrimination on the basis of sexual preference as a different kind of thing from discrimination on the basis of race or gender, and that's why you're dismissive of the idea that Berman could be any kind of bigot. Is that right?

If you need to ask... you've more than likely already made up your mind.

 

[BillJ]

And if you'll look above, one of the things you'll note is that I said it's important not to simply assume Berman is a bigot. While it's clear that he's at the very least a "heterocentrist," it's not fair to assume he's an out and out bigot on the basis of the information we have.

Which is the point I've been trying to make from the get-go. I don't even think you can prove he is 'heterocentrist' from the information we have. We honestly have no idea what went on behind closed doors. We have no idea what kind of fight he had in casting Avery Brooks and Kate Mulgrew as leads. Perhaps he just no longer had the fight in him. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Which is fair enough -- maybe he was progressive on every other issue but this. But the simple act of refusing to depict LGBT individuals, of refusing to allow filmed Trek to even acknowledge their existence, is an act of, at best, "heterocentricity." Now, the guy, for all I know, may be a regular donator to GLAAD and The Advocate. But on this issue, the creative choice he made was deeply, for want of a better word, "heterocentric;" this particular creative choice was one that complied with the heterosexist system of thought that permeates much of American culture.

I'm not saying we should make him wear a "Scarlet 'H'" on his chest for the rest of his life, but we shouldn't make excuses for immoral creative choices, either.

I think flawed from our perspective would be a better term in absence of evidence.

 

[trevanian]

Ron Moore

I just don't trust him. Sorry. If there was a problem, he didn't seem to mind while collecting a paycheck. I consider him a hostile witness at best. Where were all the homo-sexuals on Battlestar Galactica?

Commanding PEGASUS?

A couple more that I can think of, one who took over GALACTICA in a coup, another who inherited the ship briefly just before the end. And if you choose to complain that it took a few years to get shows that had primary featured gay characters, keep in mind that they did this with a lot less episodes, and in a universe that didn't really seem very enlightened at times, so you'd figure the issue, if it did arise, would be more in the closeted vein than Trek.

If you read the old Moore interviews in CFQ, you can see he was pretty open and honest about his differences with the producers over specific shows (feuding with Piller over the Wesley at Academy fink-on-friends thing and such.)

 

[BillJ]

Ron Moore

I just don't trust him. Sorry. If there was a problem, he didn't seem to mind while collecting a paycheck. I consider him a hostile witness at best. Where were all the homo-sexuals on Battlestar Galactica?

Commanding PEGASUS?

A couple more that I can think of, one who took over GALACTICA in a coup, another who inherited the ship briefly just before the end. And if you choose to complain that it took a few years to get shows that had primary featured gay characters, keep in mind that they did this with a lot less episodes, and in a universe that didn't really seem very enlightened at times, so you'd figure the issue, if it did arise, would be more in the closeted vein than Trek.

If you read the old Moore interviews in CFQ, you can see he was pretty open and honest about his differences with the producers over specific shows (feuding with Piller over the Wesley at Academy fink-on-friends thing and such.)

I dropped out midway through season three. According to my wife the only way you would know Gaeda was gay was by watching the 'webisodes'. And the rest were just guest stars which were no different than how Trek touched on it: by pulling them out, patting themselves on the back and then putting them away again. The difference is Moore is seemingly a God around these parts.

Can you point me in the direction of those Moore interviews?

 

[Andy Mangels]

I'm sure someone will come beating me with a stick over this one. But wasn't Richard Arnold fired as well?

Are you certain that Arnold is straight? If not, he may just not be as "out" as Ernie Over.
Hmm, let's Google:
http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=3&STORY_ID=1751&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=5
"Born in Vancouver but currently residing in LA, Richard Arnold has been a lifelong fan of science fiction, with a particular passion for Star Trek. This hot homo may be a traitor for defecting to the US, but he couldn't have become top dog among Trek fans if he hadn't."
*ahem*
"hot homo"?
or how about this:
http://www.fabmagazine.com/features/297/SciFi.html
“Wait!” yelled Arnold, “I care! I’m gay!” He then admitted that “Gene Roddenberry told him, ‘There are two things you can be in Hollywood but you can’t talk about, and that’s Jewish or gay. They will use it against you.’ So I couldn’t say anything while I was there.”
So, that makes two high-profile gay men who were fired during the early days of Berman's tenure...

Ron Moore I just don't trust him. Sorry. If there was a problem, he didn't seem to mind while collecting a paycheck. I consider him a hostile witness at best. Where were all the homo-sexuals on Battlestar Galactica?

And you apparently don't trust anyone else who I quoted, or me? Because I have, you know, a gay agenda? And nobody who ever has an agenda is truthful...

This and other books listed were being published while Rick Berman was in charge of the franchise.

And as I said, there are elements about that very aspect I'm not at liberty to divulge. Suffice it to hypothetically say that Berman's office was not always made aware of some plot points. And not everyone working for Berman made sure he knew about all plot points. And sometimes things arrived too late to make changes. All hypothetically, of course.

So I still think it's a stretch to call Rick Berman a bigot.

Yes it is. Which is why I never said that. I said "Berman was a proponent that they shouldn't (be featured)." I did not ascribe motives. I merely pointed out that everyone I've had contact with - WHO WORKED WITH BERMAN - said he was the person standing in the way of featuring gay characters.

Andy - I still think you're one hell of a writer even if I disagree with your viewpoint on this.

Thank you for the compliment.

For what it's worth, with the exception of this element -- and some truly execrable character/story/plot/script decisions he made from time to time -- I thought Berman was a pretty decent producer.

 

[BillJ]

I'm sure someone will come beating me with a stick over this one. But wasn't Richard Arnold fired as well?

Are you certain that Arnold is straight? If not, he may just not be as "out" as Ernie Over.
Hmm, let's Google:
http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=3&STORY_ID=1751&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=5
"Born in Vancouver but currently residing in LA, Richard Arnold has been a lifelong fan of science fiction, with a particular passion for Star Trek. This hot homo may be a traitor for defecting to the US, but he couldn't have become top dog among Trek fans if he hadn't."
*ahem*
"hot homo"?
or how about this:
http://www.fabmagazine.com/features/297/SciFi.html
“Wait!” yelled Arnold, “I care! I’m gay!” He then admitted that “Gene Roddenberry told him, ‘There are two things you can be in Hollywood but you can’t talk about, and that’s Jewish or gay. They will use it against you.’ So I couldn’t say anything while I was there.”
So, that makes two high-profile gay men who were fired during the early days of Berman's tenure...

I always thought he was fired because he was a horse's ass...

Ron Moore I just don't trust him. Sorry. If there was a problem, he didn't seem to mind while collecting a paycheck. I consider him a hostile witness at best. Where were all the homo-sexuals on Battlestar Galactica?

And you apparently don't trust anyone else who I quoted, or me? Because I have, you know, a gay agenda? And nobody who ever has an agenda is truthful...

Not true. Found lots of it very interesting and worthy of closer inspection.

And as I said, there are elements about that very aspect I'm not at liberty to divulge. Suffice it to hypothetically say that Berman's office was not always made aware of some plot points. And not everyone working for Berman made sure he knew about all plot points. And sometimes things arrived too late to make changes. All hypothetically, of course.

This is where it falls apart for me, sorry. I can see one or two books making it through that way. But I can't see Berman missing that many. I don't think you go as far as he did without paying attention to what's going on around you.

So I still think it's a stretch to call Rick Berman a bigot.

Yes it is. Which is why I never said that. I said "Berman was a proponent that they shouldn't (be featured)." I did not ascribe motives. I merely pointed out that everyone I've had contact with - WHO WORKED WITH BERMAN - said he was the person standing in the way of featuring gay characters.

Andy - I still think you're one hell of a writer even if I disagree with your viewpoint on this.

Thank you for the compliment.

For what it's worth, with the exception of this element -- and some truly execrable character/story/plot/script decisions he made from time to time -- I thought Berman was a pretty decent producer.

I think he made some tremendous mistakes while in charge and made no real attempts to expand the fan-base. And as I said before I find most of Modern Trek to be bland.

I've just learned in life that things are never as cut-and-dry as some would like it to seem. Maybe someday I'll learn the secret handshake and see what goes on behind closed doors.

Andy - Thanks for your time. It's always a pleasure to debate with Trek creators, very stimulating. I look forward to more of your thoughts on the subject.

 

[neogothboy74]

I put two gay characters in Star Trek: The Last Generation--one of whom had been a series regular--and the relationship at one point becomes central to the story, but during the approvals process I never heard a single objection about it from CBS/Paramount, for what that's worth.

I think part of the question here is that being gay is regarded as something that makes you part of a "group" rather than part of something that makes you an individual. In other words, the way that Star Trek treats aliens, rather than the way it treats characters.

THANK YOU for the inclusion, and your words. I'll be sure to check out 'The Last Generation' ASAP. I just preordered the July 2009 Graphic Novel from Amazon.

Thanks, hope you like it.

You should also check out KRAD's old series from Wildstorm, Perchance to Dream, since he tackles this very same question through the clever metaphorical device of a species with three genders. I think it's collected in the omnibus volume Enemy Unseen with a couple of other Wildstorm series.

Thanks. I'll look for it.

Where were all the homo-sexuals on Battlestar Galactica?

The homosexuals & bisexuals were represented on BSG, which only has about 80 episodes total. Felix Gaeta was presented as bisexual. His boyfriend Louis Hoshi briefly became Admiral of the fleet. Some believe that Gaeta may have also been involved with Baltar at some point, though this was never shown on screen - at the very least it could be intimated that Gaeta was infatuated with Baltar through much of the first 2 seasons. Gina Inviere (one of the Sixes) was presented as bisexual, and had a complex relationship with Admiral Helena Cain (Michelle Forbes who played Ro Laren), and later Baltar. Caprica Six & D'anna Biers were involved in three way relationship with Gaius Baltar; all three shared a bed. There was also a pair of male soldiers in the background of an episode in a suggestive pose. Even though most of these relationships were only referenced in small scenes (there are no major gay / bi plot lines on the series), the characters were featured throughout the series and for 80 some episodes I think we were fairly represented.

Now compare that inclusion to Trek's television adventures, which has 726 episodes + 10 movies. Does that seem remotely realistic to you? I know Trek is a sci-fi fantasy kind of deal, but it's always seemed to pride itself on being a bastion of inclusion and a mirror to humanity in the here and now. And I'm telling you the reflection from that metaphorical mirror is distorted and dishonest. And that's a shame, because it didn't have to be. Trek is hurting LGBT audience members of all ages who long to be reflected there - and who deserve to be reflected there. Much of Star Trek wouldn't be what it is today without the labor LGBT people. It seems so hipocritical that TPTB are willing to use the talents of LGBT actors / writers / producers / authors behind the scenes for profit, but is unwilling to represent them at the most basic level. It's sad. It's pathetic. And it's wrong.

 

[BillJ]

Trek is hurting LGBT audience members of all ages who long to be reflected there - and who deserve to be reflected there. Much of Star Trek wouldn't be what it is today without the labor LGBT people.

This is the part that makes me . It's a TV show and you nor members of your community should be that wrapped up in it. If Star Trek doesn't want your money find someone who does. And I say more power to you.

It seems so hipocritical that TPTB are willing to use the talents of LGBT actors / writers / producers / authors behind the scenes for profit, but is unwilling to represent them at the most basic level. It's sad. It's pathetic. And it's wrong.

No one is holding a gun to their head to work for Star Trek. Lots of jobs out there. But it leads back to my points about Berman and the mainstream audiences. He has LGBT working behind the scenes and makes subtle nods throughout Trek. I think his concerns (right or wrong) were about mainstream audiences abandoning Trek. Once again, this is as an outsider looking in.

Which brings up a question for Andy -

If you were forced to cut the Admiral Krell scene where we find out he is gay, would you have still co-written Kobayashi Maru?

 

[Christopher]

For some of us, Berman did more than just make "a TV show in a way that some people didn't like." According to everyone I've ever discussed the matter with behind the scenes (who WOULD talk about the situation), Berman was the reason gays were excluded from Star Trek. Even using his own words from multiple interviews, it became clear that at the very least, he was not going to do something with gays unless it was the second coming of Dickens, Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Asimov all rolled into one. And even then, he wouldn't be likely to approve it unless a gun to his head was imminent.

If Berman had created a climate in which no African-Americans were ever featured, or no Asian-Americans were featured, the anger would be deafening, and rightly so. But people argue... ARGUE ... that gays should EVER be seen in Star Trek, and Berman was a proponent that they shouldn't. In his own words.

For some people, the "Berman controversy" wasn't just about storytelling choices, but over the politically-motivated denial of their own existence. And that's a denial I can never forgive Berman for.

If that's the case, then you certainly have valid grounds to criticize the man. I'd never heard that about Berman before, but it's an entirely legitimate grievance to raise -- in contrast to the trivial complaints about TV-show quality which were what I was referring to.