If Abrams thinks he knows his audience he is mistaken

[Pauln6]

Most of the episodes featuring a gay theme were indeed a bit preachy, but worse, they featured the 'unconventional relationship' as problematic, a struggle, and to one degree or another, socially unacceptable.

I agree that a low key, don't bat an eyelid, cameo is the best way to go. I shall be watching the new Phase II episodes this Xmas but I have watched the first scene feturing the gay bedroom scene and yeah, it was a little bit too believable! On the one hand we can hope that some enterprising porn director borrows the script. On the other hand, I can see why many conservative people thought it was a step too far.

Writers have to remember that we aren't trying to convert people with bigoted viewpoints; we're trying to de-sensitise their children to the notion that gay relationships are not a normal part of society. The subtle approach will be far more effective.

 

[DevilEyes]

Star Trek has been dancing around the issue of featuring LGBT characters for forty years; after such a long span of time, if it doesn't reverse course and start featuring LGBT characters, it can rationally be characterized as denying the very existence of LGBT individuals.

So I'd say that Star Trek, as a program dedicated to the values of diversity and inclusiveness and, frankly, modern American liberalism, has a moral obligation to depict LGBT characters.

And additionally, also has an obligation to common sense. It's simply unbelievable that out of all those people we've seen in various Treks, of various species and planets, not a single one is gay or bisexual*?!

* except if they are the eeevil Mirror Universe counterparts of the good heteroxuals

It's really started to stick out like sore thumb. We've seen polygamists, so that's apparently OK. We've seen genderless people, we've seen people who can choose to be whichever sex/gender they want, we've seen males get pregnant, we've seen humans have sex with androids and holograms, but apparently gays and bisexuals are just too much?

I'd also say that Star Trek's first duty is to be entertaining, and that no one likes a minority character who exists simply for the sake of being a minority character; two-dimensional tokenism is not the way to go.

I agree; that's why they simply don't have to make it the main trait of the character.

Andrew Robinson played Garak, at first at least, "omnisexual", in his words, but the writers didn't seem to like the idea. Why? That was a good opportunity to have an interesting character who happens not to be straight, but there would have been little danger of that becoming his defining characteristic. So what was the problem?

 

[Kegg]

You know, I wonder how many people complain that the heterosexual relationships in Star Trek distracted from the movie? All that stuff with Spock going dew eyed over Uhura and Kirk trying to catch her name. No place for that damn nonsense in our film, no sir.

Which is why I don't quite go down that route. I don't think anything should be inserted and feel gratuituous, but I don't object to it on principle either that it'd always distract the movie from whatever the movie is about.

Star Trek has been dancing around the issue of featuring LGBT characters for forty years;

Over twenty years, more like. In TOS's time it was an edgy issue to bring up miscegenation; a black/white relationship in "The Alternative Factor" got axed from the screenplay and a memorably preposterous excuse had to be used to actually get a black/white kiss onscreen.

I think TOS was less dancing around the issue of homosexuality and more actively avoiding it, if it came up at all. It's from TNG onwards we've had the long dance, where the issue has come up and being sidelined or indelicately handled and so on.

 

[BillJ]

Andrew Robinson played Garak, at first at least, "omnisexual", in his words, but the writers didn't seem to like the idea. Why? That was a good opportunity to have an interesting character who happens not to be straight, but there would have been little danger of that becoming his defining characteristic. So what was the problem?

The problem becomes the pure fact that the majority of your audience has grown older and more conservative. And that Star Trek is more akin to McDonald's than a creative endeavor at this point.

They have a recipe that works and they're not going to veer off of it.

 

[Pauln6]

The problem becomes the pure fact that the majority of your audience has grown older and more conservative. And that Star Trek is more akin to McDonald's than a creative endeavor at this point.

They have a recipe that works and they're not going to veer off of it.

Which is a shame. If such an attitude had been applied to Trek Roddenbury would have got rid of the guy with the ears. They need to push the boundaries a bit. Their failure to do so in Enterprise contributed to the stagnation of the tv and movie franchise.

 

[BillJ]

The problem becomes the pure fact that the majority of your audience has grown older and more conservative. And that Star Trek is more akin to McDonald's than a creative endeavor at this point.

They have a recipe that works and they're not going to veer off of it.

Which is a shame. If such an attitude had been applied to Trek Roddenbury would have got rid of the guy with the ears. They need to push the boundaries a bit. Their failure to do so in Enterprise contributed to the stagnation of the tv and movie franchise.

The reason he was able to keep Spock was that he wasn't reflective of any one group.

It's the reason you have stories like The Outcast and Rejoined, a writer can get away with it if he embeds it in another societies struggles.

And I wouldn't hold my breath about it changing anytime soon. I was suprised Paramount allowed Blood and Fire to be released honestly.

 

[Pauln6]

The reason he was able to keep Spock was that he wasn't reflective of any one group.

It's the reason you have stories like The Outcast and Rejoined, a writer can get away with it if he embeds it in another societies struggles.

And I wouldn't hold my breath about it changing anytime soon. I was suprised Paramount allowed Blood and Fire to be released honestly.

The error in this approach is to categorise gay characters as a group at all! Gayness should be one minor facet of any character. We want it to blend in, not stand out as part of a struggle just as Nichelle or Whoopi don't want their ethnicity to be any kind of issue today. Levar was aware that he was an icon for disabled people, his race was no issue at all.

 

[BillJ]

The reason he was able to keep Spock was that he wasn't reflective of any one group.

It's the reason you have stories like The Outcast and Rejoined, a writer can get away with it if he embeds it in another societies struggles.

And I wouldn't hold my breath about it changing anytime soon. I was suprised Paramount allowed Blood and Fire to be released honestly.

The error in this approach is to categorise gay characters as a group at all! Gayness should be one minor facet of any character. We want it to blend in, not stand out as part of a struggle just as Nichelle or Whoopi don't want their ethnicity to be any kind of issue today. Levar was aware that he was an icon for disabled people, his race was no issue at all.

No matter how wrong it is: Gay equals unacceptable has been ingrained in our culture for a very long time. As a Paramount executive, I don't want to include something that could negatively impact my $200 million dollar summer blockbuster.

 

[Captain Robert April]

That's the nub of it though. For what is an otherwise sensitive and thoughtful episode, it only happened because it involved "two hot chicks", and even then there was opposition.

The simple fact is that the episode would never have happened with two male Trill. It would never have even been considered. Two guys kissing doesn't hit the demographic, whereas hot lesbians titillates the important young male audience. It was cynical.

And also why "Blood and Fire" had to go the fanfilm route to actually get made.

And it fell exactly into the trap I noted, as was pointed out by several reviews I read. The inclusion of the "gay angle" was done in such a way as to wave a big "rainbow" flag in the viewers' faces.

That's where we start getting into areas of technicalities. Storywise, I have no problem. In fact, I applaud the script. The editing (which is still subject to change, so take this as a bit of a time capsule of how things stand presently), is another matter. The make out session between Peter and his boyfriend went on waaaaaay too long, to the point where you start wondering when they start ripping each others' clothes off and really going at it. Certainly well past the point of where the audience is yelling at the screen, "Okay, we get it, they're gay and in love, MOVE ON ALREADY!!"

 

[Pauln6]

No matter how wrong it is: Gay equals unacceptable has been ingrained in our culture for a very long time. As a Paramount executive, I don't want to include something that could negatively impact my $200 million dollar summer blockbuster.

Depends what you mean by 'our culture'. In India it was acceptable until the British outlawed it! There are African cultures where it was the norm. I'm sure their are others. Don't overlay too much baggage from the Jewish/Christian/Islamic model.

Plus that's the excuse used to keep Uhura off our screens. It didn't wash then and it shouldn't wash now.

 

[Captain Robert April]

There's more than a little sophistry with regard to Uhura being included in the show. Blacks were showing up on television well before Star Trek and nobody was burning crosses in the tv station's parking lot. By the time Star Trek started to hit the air, we'd already had the cultural conversation and a consensus had been reached that racism was wrong, and those racists still holding firm were, more often than not, being seen for the pig-headed troglodytes that they were. Hell, even the Superman radio show in the 1940's had done an anti-Klan episode. And, more in context, Bill Cosby was listed in the opening titles of "I, Spy" when it premiered in '65, a year before Nichelle Nichols had even heard of Star Trek.

 

[Pauln6]

By the time Star Trek started to hit the air, we'd already had the cultural conversation and a consensus had been reached that racism was wrong, and those racists still holding firm were, more often than not, being seen for the pig-headed troglodytes that they were.

Well, considering that Trek was founded on allegorical stories... I don't have to spell it out do I?

 

[Kegg]

Depends what you mean by 'our culture'.

United States of America. Isn't that the only culture that counts here? For all its multiculturalism Star Trek is very much an American franchise with American issues and is percieved as by such by, er, non-Americans.

Hell, even the Superman radio show in the 1940's had done an anti-Klan episode.

Curious: Did it reference the racism at all? I'm thinking here of the Ronald Reagan film, Storm Warning, which has a timely anti-Klan message about how they're corrupt and they bully and kill people... like white journalists from out-of-town. Blacks are nonexistent in that picture.

Anyway, Star Trek still had a black/white relationship cut from an episode and was the first TV show on American TV to show a black/white kiss, so my point still sorta stands. Touchy issue and all, even if attitudes had substantially changed.

 

[Pauln6]

Depends what you mean by 'our culture'.

United States of America. Isn't that the only culture that counts here? For all its multiculturalism Star Trek is very much an American franchise with American issues and is percieved as by such by, er, non-Americans.

Lol - that was exactly why they brought in a Russian in TOS.

It's true though, the black/white issue was never as divisive in the UK.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

That's the nub of it though. For what is an otherwise sensitive and thoughtful episode, it only happened because it involved "two hot chicks", and even then there was opposition.

The simple fact is that the episode would never have happened with two male Trill. It would never have even been considered. Two guys kissing doesn't hit the demographic, whereas hot lesbians titillates the important young male audience. It was cynical.

And also why "Blood and Fire" had to go the fanfilm route to actually get made.

And it fell exactly into the trap I noted, as was pointed out by several reviews I read. The inclusion of the "gay angle" was done in such a way as to wave a big "rainbow" flag in the viewers' faces.

Just out of curiosity, do you have links to those reviews?

 

[Myasishchev]

No matter how wrong it is: Gay equals unacceptable has been ingrained in our culture for a very long time. As a Paramount executive, I don't want to include something that could negatively impact my $200 million dollar summer blockbuster.

Depends what you mean by 'our culture'. In India it was acceptable until the British outlawed it!

Where in India? I'm aware of the 2009 Delhi High Court decision that invalidated Section 377 of the Indian penal code. It's true that the invalidated provision was introduced by the British, but my impression of India is not one of a terribly homosexual-friendly country. It's against sharia law, of course; it is likewise verboten under Sikh practice; and afaik Hindus aren't particularly fond of it either.

From the New York Times article reporting on the decision:

Still, the decision was condemned from many corners in India. “This is wrong,” said Maulana Abdul Khaliq Madrasi, a vice chancellor of Dar ul-Uloom, the main university for Islamic education in India. The decision to bring Western culture to India, he said, will “corrupt Indian boys and girls.”


The High Court’s decision should be overturned, said Murli Manohar Joshi, the leader of the main opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. “The High Court cannot decide all things,” he said

I think that Western civilization is very likely to be the only real oasis for homosexual freedom on Earth. There are some interesting advances in India, not least the recognition of marriages undertaken through religious ceremony, regardless of actual sex of the participants (a loophole in Indian law, apparently, designed basically to permit legal marriages in ridiculously poor areas not serviced by the bureaucracy, and not specifically intended for that purpose). But I certainly don't consider a country that took 52 years to rid itself of a British-written and supposedly British-imposed law (that, mind you, the British got rid of in 1967) to be great evidence of a highly tolerant society. It's like blaming the United States' feet-dragging until 2003 and the Lawrence decision on our own colonial history. At any rate, it's problematic to relate any post-independence Indian law because there was no such thing as India until the Union came into being in 1947, only a vast number of different cultures and legal regimes.

I'm also curious as to which African cultures embrace homosexuality.

 

[Pauln6]

No matter how wrong it is: Gay equals unacceptable has been ingrained in our culture for a very long time. As a Paramount executive, I don't want to include something that could negatively impact my $200 million dollar summer blockbuster.

Depends what you mean by 'our culture'. In India it was acceptable until the British outlawed it!

Where in India? I'm aware of the 2009 Delhi High Court decision that invalidated Section 377 of the Indian penal code. It's true that the invalidated provision was introduced by the British, but my impression of India is not one of a terribly homosexual-friendly country. It's against sharia law, of course; it is likewise verboten under Sikh practice; and afaik Hindus aren't particularly fond of it either.

I'm also curious as to which African cultures embrace homosexuality.

Transexuals were an accepted part of Indian culture prior to the British rule. Hmmm, maybe accepted is too strong a word, as they had the power to curse people, but whatever, it wasn't illegal at the time.

I'm dredging up ancient sociology from the nineties and its true that it might be south american tribes rather than african ones but some tribes have more than two genders as part of their culture. Rare but not unheard of.

Then there were the Greeks and Spartans - the nature of the relationships were curious since it was generally only acceptable to have toy boys. It was hilarious to see the macho Spartans in 300 criticsing the Greeks for something they used to do themselves plus rewriting Troy to feature a 'nephew' instead of a lover. Hilariously desperate. You can almost see the suits sweating in an enclosed room with biros poised to edit history... I mean the script.

 

[Myasishchev]

In fairness to the (cinematic) version of 300, that's a direct quote from the source material, written by notable deranged man Frank Miller. I think the bigger problem in 300 (the film and the comic) is the mind-boggling decision to make the Iranian villains black guys.

As for the classical Greeks, yeah, homosexuality as we would recognize it was widely accepted. But they, as you point out, made a really odd distinction between penetrator and penetrated, not made by modern homophobes but well-represented in my nation's prisons (which are probably a good analogy for Sparta's civil society at least anyway). Regarding Homeric Greeks, I would be wary of embracing Achilles and such as big exemplars, seeing as how the Achaeans were nothing but a band of thieves and rapists.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Depends what you mean by 'our culture'. In India it was acceptable until the British outlawed it!

Where in India? I'm aware of the 2009 Delhi High Court decision that invalidated Section 377 of the Indian penal code. It's true that the invalidated provision was introduced by the British, but my impression of India is not one of a terribly homosexual-friendly country. It's against sharia law, of course; it is likewise verboten under Sikh practice; and afaik Hindus aren't particularly fond of it either.

I'm also curious as to which African cultures embrace homosexuality.

Transexuals were an accepted part of Indian culture prior to the British rule. Hmmm, maybe accepted is too strong a word, as they had the power to curse people, but whatever, it wasn't illegal at the time.

I'm dredging up ancient sociology from the nineties and its true that it might be south american tribes rather than african ones but some tribes have more than two genders as part of their culture. Rare but not unheard of.

Then there were the Greeks and Spartans - the nature of the relationships were curious since it was generally only acceptable to have toy boys. It was hilarious to see the macho Spartans in 300 criticsing the Greeks for something they used to do themselves plus rewriting Troy to feature a 'nephew' instead of a lover. Hilariously desperate. You can almost see the suits sweating in an enclosed room with biros poised to edit history... I mean the script.

I doubt the scripts for those movies ever included those particular historical facts. The editing of history probably began in the idea stage. For "300" back when it was a comic book. (sorry, Graphic Novel)

 

[Pauln6]

In fairness to the (cinematic) version of 300, that's a direct quote from the source material, written by notable deranged man Frank Miller. I think the bigger problem in 300 (the film and the comic) is the mind-boggling decision to make the Iranian villainsblack guys.

As for the Greeks, yeah, homosexuality as we would recognize it was widely accepted. But they, as you point out, made a really odd distinction between penetrator and penetrated, not made by modern homophobes but well-represented in my nation's prisons (which are probably a good analogy for Sparta's civil society at least anyway).

I LOVED League of Gentlemen. The sequel gave me the impression that he was worried that there was a danger of the franchise becoming too mainstream so he went out of his way to be so offensive that pretty much everybody would be offended by something.