Berman Memoirs

[Trent Roman]

Re: Berman as bigot.

To be fair, the sense that I get from all of that is not so much that Berman is a bigot as that he's... I don't know if there's a word that's been developed for it, but, if there's a distinction between racism and ethnocentricity, I'd say that it's the same with Berman. "Heterocentricity?"

The queer studies people I know prefer "heteronormative": broadly speaking, the assumption of heterosexuality and consequent marginalization of any state of being or mode of life that differs from the common male/female dyad. This might actually be the better word considering the examples that BillJ raised and Andy's subsequent debunking of them: such relationships were not entirely ignored, but the episode always ended in such a fashion as to deny the idea that such relationships could take place, raising the issue and then dismissing it.

That said, it's general my view that 'ethnocentrism' or 'heteronormative' are passive stances, taken not out of malice but ignorance and lack of sensitivity, whereas racism/cultural chauvisism and heterosexism or homophobia would be the active modes. And while you're right that I've never heard of Berman applauding funerals or any of that Westboro Baptist shit, there's a difference between not including gay characters simply because one never thinks of it, because of limited contact, and actually playing a blocking role against people who do want to include LGBT characters/themes into the show, a stance of active denial. This is more than a failure to take a stand--something which I've decried Trek for in the past, even when I thought it was just a reflection of general television conservatism--but an outright refusal to do so, and preventing people who did want to from doing so. I would call that a prejudiced stance.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[JD]

Wow, I've never heard this about Berman before. It definitely lowers my opinion of him.
FYI, it was anounced a few months back that Ron Moore's new series, Virtualtiy, will feature a gay couple as two of the main characters.

 

[Sci]

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.

I've got no problem with noting that Roddenberry was no saint and did some pretty morally reprehensible things. But that doesn't mean that Trek shouldn't strive to show diversity, including diversity of sexual orientations.

 

[Andy Mangels]

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?

Yes. Why wouldn't I?
I also would have debated the issue, and asked if they similarly wanted me to cut roles for any other "undesirables"/potentially controversial figures, such as African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and religious characters.

If I have an "agenda" when writing (beyond telling an entertaining story, and telling it well), it is to write truthfully, about the diversity of life, the universe, and everything. Time and again I have pointed out that as a writer, the more interesting and diverse characters you have, the more interesting and diverse your readership will find those characters.

As a side note, what makes you so certain I wrote that scene with Krell? My co-writer on the novels, Mike Martin, outed several characters in our books. And he's straight as they come. Sure, I've now revealed the husband was named after a friend of mine, but that doesn't even guarantee that I wrote it, just that I named the character.

The one guarantee I can give you is that any religious or faith-based scene in any of our books -- and I believe almost every book has some -- was written by me. I grew up religious, and incorporate a respect for and understanding of religion (of many cultures) into my "agenda."

 

[BillJ]

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?

Yes. Why wouldn't I?
I also would have debated the issue, and asked if they similarly wanted me to cut roles for any other "undesirables"/potentially controversial figures, such as African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and religious characters.

If I have an "agenda" when writing (beyond telling an entertaining story, and telling it well), it is to write truthfully, about the diversity of life, the universe, and everything. Time and again I have pointed out that as a writer, the more interesting and diverse characters you have, the more interesting and diverse your readership will find those characters.

As a side note, what makes you so certain I wrote that scene with Krell? My co-writer on the novels, Mike Martin, outed several characters in our books. And he's straight as they come. Sure, I've now revealed the husband was named after a friend of mine, but that doesn't even guarantee that I wrote it, just that I named the character.

The one guarantee I can give you is that any religious or faith-based scene in any of our books -- and I believe almost every book has some -- was written by me. I grew up religious, and incorporate a respect for and understanding of religion (of many cultures) into my "agenda."

Thanks for answering. I assumed you wrote the passage based on something said in another thread (if wrong I apologize to both you and Michael Martin).

I was interested because I'm a liberal working for a very conservative company and have to check most of my views at the door on a any given day.

 

[BillJ]

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.

I've got no problem with noting that Roddenberry was no saint and did some pretty morally reprehensible things. But that doesn't mean that Trek shouldn't strive to show diversity, including diversity of sexual orientations.

I agree with your point. But I'm also tired of people treating Trek like some type of twenty-first century Bible. People need to be clear as to why it was created (money) and what real purpose it serves in life (none, except to entertain).

Why Star Trek endures is because of the fans. To try to ascribe motives to its producers, beyond making the most money possible, is foolish.

 

[Steve Roby]

Why Star Trek endures is because of the fans. To try to ascribe motives to its producers, beyond making the most money possible, is foolish.

Sure. But to ask its producers to live up to the motives they claim to be acting out of is hardly unreasonable. I'm not a member of the Holy Order of Saint Gene, and I don't think he was any kind of deep thinker. But however the notion that Trek was supposed to be liberal and progressive caught on, TPTB took that flag and ran with it. They were happy to be seen that way, they talked about Gene's vision, they had a black lead and a woman lead on Trek series (and yes, there were a fair number of people who bitched about those decisions). So it's not naive utopianism or anything to be pissed off at Berman et al. for missing the boat on this subject.

 

[Tulaberry whine]

Why Star Trek endures is because of the fans.

Exactly. We've seen time and time again that one of the reasons why the original series became so popular and remained in the public consciousness for so long despite its modest beginnings was because it appealed to so many disparate (often minority) groups of people through the diversity of its cast. The impact of background, 'token' characters such as Uhuru and Sulu on the public consciousness far outweigh any contributions they made to the series dramatically.

To turn its back on this inclusiveness in the short-sighted pursuit of dollars risks damaging the Trek brand irreparably. Not only does Trek do a disservice to the intelligence of its fans by adopting a blind attitude towards LGBT issues, but if such an approach to drama is expanded to is logical conclusion (and on other 'hot button' issues such as religion this seems to have been the case), the franchise is in danger of becoming an anachronism (if it hasn't already).

And as it stands now, it still remains to be seen whether Trek will endure beyond an ever-dwindling group of rusted on fans. The approach to drama you're defending as essential to Trek's long-term survival seems to have left it sidelined and irrelevant.

Given its moribund state, it will be interesting to see if the forthcoming movie can push Trek back into popular consciousness (beyond its opening weekend) and how it does this.

 

[trevanian]

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?

I said CFQ; you'd have to go BUY them if you want more.

They really didn't do the pat on back thing, and since you didn't see them, you probably shouldn't make an assumption on that point. I'm not a huge Moore defender (I'm of the opinion that the show he did to get on staff about the Rom defector has WAY TOO MANY similarities to Diane Duane's MY ENEMY MY ALLY), but he did good stuff.

 

[BillJ]

And as it stands now, it still remains to be seen whether Trek will endure beyond an ever-dwindling group of rusted on fans. The approach to drama you're defending as essential to Trek's long-term survival seems to have left it sidelined and irrelevant.

Never defended the approach, you'd know this is you'd read the whole thread.

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.

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".

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.

I've simply been defending Rick Berman from being convicted as a 'bigot' based on the evidence at hand. Nothing more, nothing less. But here on the internet is seems you're "guilty until proven innocent". And if you attempt to jump into the argument to protect someone you're guilty as well (George W. Bush's whole 'if you're not for us, you're against us' mindset.). Which is why it seems Star Trek as a whole has devolved into nothing but shipper talk.

 

[BillJ]

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?

I said CFQ; you'd have to go BUY them if you want more.

They really didn't do the pat on back thing, and since you didn't see them, you probably shouldn't make an assumption on that point. I'm not a huge Moore defender (I'm of the opinion that the show he did to get on staff about the Rom defector has WAY TOO MANY similarities to Diane Duane's MY ENEMY MY ALLY), but he did good stuff.

Was hoping you could maybe point towards issue numbers. Didn't want to have to go through their entire back catalog.

Made the assumption based on the first three and a half years I did watch.

 

[Andy Mangels]

Was hoping you could maybe point towards issue numbers. Didn't want to have to go through their entire back catalog.

The Moore interviews were a part of their regular once-yearly double-sized Star Trek issues, which were some of the BEST coverage the series ever got from a behind-the-scenes perspective. The amount of interviews and commentaries were fantastic.

Oddly, it takes several hoops to find back issues listed on the CFQ site, and then, they're links to Amazon used copies! You'd probably get them cheaper on eBay

If searching on Amazon or eBay, enter:
Cinefantastique +Star Trek

 

[plague]

I have to disagree with there not being any LGBT characters on trek. I think that Dax did not have a sexual preference, which some would call bisexual. However, I think it was a cop out because she was an alien (not human) and because she was a woman. Everyone knows that TV shows have women kiss to titillate audiences, but rarely show two men kiss.

I feel that BSG copped out in the same way by having a lesbian relationship rather than a gay one on TV. It's very easy not to offend your bigoted TV audience by only allowing the writers to create a gay relationship in the webisodes, which most viewers will never see and can easily pretend never occured.

Once a TV show has had 20 guys make a remark that reveals their sexual preference, one of those should be towards the same gender. Is that too hard?

I guess perhaps it is just too realistic as most TV shows are about people at work. How many gays are afraid to come out at work, and likely have a good reason to be afraid? I hope that I live long enough to see this change. Hell, even when not at work, gay men are rightly afraid to show public displays of affection.

 

[DimesDan]

May I just ask, as Star Trek is based in the future, would a beings sexuality actually really matter?

 

[Count Zero]

The future is not necessarily progressive. Still, even in the future, there would be lesbian/gay people, so it's a bit weird we never get to see them or even have it mentioned.

 

[DimesDan]

The future is not necessarily progressive. Still, even in the future, there would be lesbian/gay people, so it's a bit weird we never get to see them or even have it mentioned.

Oh I completely understand that. Instead of internal politics I've put the fact we don't really see any homosexual people is because of first contact with other species and that it may not matter anymore - tis one of the reasons I absolutely love Captain Jack on Doctor Who.

 

[Count Zero]

Yeah, Doctor Who does a great job bringing this up without making a big deal out of it. Star Trek wouldn't have needed to make an issue episode out of it, just show that it's perfectly normal in the future. It wouldn't have needed its own Captain Jack (though he's great) but an occasional scene like the one in "42", where Martha asks the guy in the life capsule whether there's a girl or a boy waiting for him somewhere, would have been nice.
And Doctor Who is a mainstream programme, intended for family viewing, yet there hasn't been much uproar about this, except for the occasional "gay agenda" whining on message boards. The fact that the Trek producers were too afraid to go there is quite sad.

 

[Steve Roby]

Yeah, Doctor Who does a great job bringing this up without making a big deal out of it. Star Trek wouldn't have needed to make an issue episode out of it

Yup. That's the real problem: the producers kept looking at homosexuality as an issue, rather than as part of the identity of some people. Doctor Who has done a great job presenting LGBT characters as people. The Star Trek books have made a lot of progress there, too. But Trek TV just didn't get it.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Roddenberry’s Assistant - Ernie Over, an openly gay man who was Roddenberry's personal assistant at Paramount, and who was quoted in The Advocate, was dismissed shortly after Roddenberry's death. Rick Berman takes control of the Star Trek franchise.

May I clarify, as explained to me at the time by Ernie Over himself. Ernie was ordered to be removed from the Paramount payroll when it became obvious that Roddenberry was too ill to come into the studio regularly. They argued, why did Paramount have to pay for a chauffeur when Gene was working from home, or too ill to work?

Roddenberry began paying Ernie's salary from his own coffers, and Majel continued the deal after GR's death.

But wasn't Richard Arnold fired as well?

Susan Sackett and Richard Arnold were locked out of the Star Trek Offices on the day after GR's death. Susan was escorted in by security and permitted to take only her personal items. She had to leave behind her personal collection of reference books because they had no inscriptions on them and had to wait until the Estate decided if they were really hers. Richard Arnold was kept on staff for a few weeks/months, and then went freelance as an advisor to selected licensees.

 

[Steve Roby]

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."

Richard Arnold is originally from Canada? Boy, you learn something new every day.