The Next Captain

[BillJ]

The interesting thing here is that no one even asks if there is a "reason" for a hetero character to appear. Its just assumed as normal. The reason gay characters should appear is that gay people exist in the general population and in the population of those who serve in uniform. No other special reason required.

The reason one might make a point about including a gay character is historic under representation and exactly the phenomenon we see here. Where hetero is assumed, and no one thinks twice about it. Nor is it ever an issue as to how to let the audience know the character is hetero. It doesnt even come up. At some point a love scene is written. Not even with the point of letting the audience know that the character is hetero. Its just written in because romance and sex are normal parts of human life.

I don't want romantic relationships of any type in Trek. Whether they be straight, gay, bi-curious or any other type... because Star Trek simply doesn't do it well and never has.

If I want to watch badly done relationship melodrama, I'll just watch Skinemax.

 

[estar9821]

I don't think the next captain should be gay -- not because I'm against it, I support gay rights, but I think it wouldn't help ratings and the American viewing public might not be ready for it. A supporting character could be gay, perhaps.

I'd prefer a female captain, but male would be fine as well, but one thing they should definitely be is ALIEN. I'd love to see an alien captain. It'd make Trek way cooler in my mind.

 

[USS Triumphant]

There's a thread in this very forum arguing that the next captain "has" to be human because an alien captain would be too scary/offputting/hard for the audience to identify with.

That's kind of a misleading way of summarizing my thread. I don't believe that the audience would have any trouble with a gay captain or an alien captain. It's the people who wouldn't be in the audience, either out of homophobia on one hand, or a lack of ability to identify with the alien main character on the other, that are the problem. You might argue that we shouldn't have to worry about them, and you're right - WE shouldn't. But the people who are responsible for selling advertisting during the show - and thus, for paying for the show's production - should. It's their job. And if they can't get enough butts in the seats, they can't pay for the shows.

I think that society is ready enough for a GBLT captain, or at least, one in the regular bridge crew, to sell advertising - assuming the show was worthwhile and well written in the first place. I don't think the general public would be able to identify with an alien main character that wasn't just a human-with- funny-makeup for a series (that isn't a comedy). I could be wrong about either of those - I'd hate to see that I was in the case of the former, and love it in the case of the latter. But I'm a pretty good student and judge of human behavior, and I doubt it.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

There have been some people saying on here about how gay people haven't suffered he same inequalities as ethnic minorities or women, but up until the mid-20th century here in the UK, I would have been locked up because of who I am.

How many other countries is it considered illegal to be homosexual? Women were never locked up because of their gender.

I understand that this will always be an issue that divides people, but its because of that fact that I think Trek should include a homosexual character in the next series (if there is to ever be a next series). I'm not saying to have them prance around the bridge kissing all the boys/girls they see, but an adult who has a lifestyle that makes them happy, from which they get love and enjoyment.

But again, all of this is just my own personal opinion.

Bry

 

[Expendable]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This!

 

[T'Girl]

Women were never locked up because of their gender.

In certain present day countries, a woman who commit the same legal offenses as a man will receive more extreme punishments than the man, including incarceration where the man would have received a lesser penalty, or perhaps none at all.

Not to stretch the metaphor too far but, women historically have been "locked up" in domestic roles, it was said in Victorian society that a proper woman left her home only on three occasions, her christening, her wedding and her funeral. Women have also been "lock out" of many societal, business and leadership possibilities solely because of their gender.

 

[darkshadow0001]

I think that for the next series the Captain should be homosexual, and definately played by a gay actor/actress.

Anyone else out there agree?

-Bry

No. I do not understand this obsession for gay people in Star Trek. Besides, there has already been a gay actor in Star Trek.

 

[Hathaway Brown]

^A gay actor does not necessarily equate to a gay character. Many a straight actor has played a gay character and visa versa.

Any new Star Trek series should really have a gay character, but as mentioned elsewhere in this thread it must not completely define that character. In fact, some here seem to be worried that a gay character would do their fair share of interstellar mattress surfing, but who says they have to? They could be very happily married and their spouse is rarely mentioned.

I do however see some reasoning in the thread that "gay for gays sake" is a little bit old hat these days, but if done right on a new series it wouldn't be like that. P

lus, due to the nature of an ensemble cast, the crew member in question would not be sole focus of the show, unless it was the Captain, but again it should not define the character. Besides 90% of the time in the shows, romance is not the main focus of the story regardless of the orientation of the character.

So, yeah I'm all for it, so long as its done right and they get the right actor and don't go out of their way to make it stand out.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I don't believe that the audience would have any trouble with a gay captain or an alien captain. It's the people who wouldn't be in the audience, either out of homophobia on one hand, or a lack of ability to identify with the alien main character on the other, that are the problem.

That's some pretty convoluted logic. The "missing" people are in the audience, for the purposes of discussion. If we assume that they're not part of the potential audience, then why even discuss them?

Face it, your thread is inadvertently revealing just how narrow minded Trek fans are, even ones who are dedicated enough to seek out a place like this one. I find it slightly astonishing but for that, I blame myself, for being insufficiently cynical. Not being able to identify with a character with blue skin or pointy ears comes from the same source as not being able to identify with a character due to their having other 'alien' qualities such as the 'wrong' gender, race or sexual orientation.

My hunch is that an alien captain (who is a straight white male American in all but the surface attributes) would be far more acceptable to the "audience" (defined as anyone who might watch Trek if it catered sufficiently to their prejudices) than a gay male captain who is otherwise perfectly "ordinary" (white male American). Some oddball makeup is going to be a lot less threatening than dialogue that reveals that Our Hero likes guys. How can cosmetics be more threatening than sex?

How many other countries is it considered illegal to be homosexual? Women were never locked up because of their gender.

Wow, I guess you're unfamiliar with such lovely places as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan. Lucky you. And not to pick on the Muslims, there are plenty of non-Muslim nations where women are subject to downright terroristic methods of oppression as well.

No. I do not understand this obsession for gay people in Star Trek. Besides, there has already been a gay actor in Star Trek.

More than one, I assure you.

The only real obstacle to a gay character (other than bigoted so-called fans, of which there are many, judging from the responses to threads that broach the topic of a gay character) is that by the 23rd C, homosexuality should be so trivial, that it would make as much sense to have a character who is defined by hair color.

 

[USS Triumphant]

That's some pretty convoluted logic.

Normal logic wasn't working, so I decided to try some alternative stuff.

I would invite you to reread Wowbagger's contribution to the other thread, and also, to quit miscontruing my own position. Let me be clear: I would love to have a series with a straight human captain, a gay human captain, a Klingon captain, a Hermat captain, a gay Tellarite captain, or a four-sexed Andorian captain, as long as it was well-written and their was hope of it staying on the air long enough to complete a planned story arc or several. And I think, really, that's the position of most Trekkies/Trekkers regarding their own viewing desires. I only question whether a general, non-Trekkie audience would be able to grok the last four of those options well enough to allow it to stay on.

And really, now that I've thought about it, I might even go so far as to possibly exclude Vulcans from the statement I was making in the other thread. Maybe Klingons, too, although I feel much less sure of that. They may be imbedded in the general culture well enough for it to work. I dunno.

 

[Hathaway Brown]

The only real obstacle to a gay character (other than bigoted so-called fans, of which there are many, judging from the responses to threads that broach the topic of a gay character) is that by the 23rd C, homosexuality should be so trivial, that it would make as much sense to have a character who is defined by hair color.

Well said. In fact you can rattle off a long list of characters in from any of the series that could have been gay. The obvious one being Sean Hawk from First Contact - turns out he's gay in the Titan books, but it makes no difference to his appearance in the film. He still got assimilated regardless. Which was just careless.

 

[BillJ]

The only real obstacle to a gay character (other than bigoted so-called fans, of which there are many, judging from the responses to threads that broach the topic of a gay character) is that by the 23rd C, homosexuality should be so trivial, that it would make as much sense to have a character who is defined by hair color.

Well said. In fact you can rattle off a long list of characters in from any of the series that could have been gay. The obvious one being Sean Hawk from First Contact - turns out he's gay in the Titan books, but it makes no difference to his appearance in the film. He still got assimilated regardless. Which was just careless.

These types of responses are why you never have honest discussions about these types of issues. Obviously, if you want a good reason for a gay character to be present... your bigoted and against all gays everywhere in perpetuity.

Then you have the case of Lieutenant Hawk... who was nothing but a redshirt destined to get skewered by the Borg. People bitch because he was suppose to be gay. Great... but if they had shown him to be gay and then get skewered by the Borg we'd have thread upon thread about how TPTB hate gays because of what they did to Hawk. Give me a break.

If the lack of a character on a TV show that is like you is that damaging to your psyche, then you need to go and re-evaluate who you are.

It's hurts me that there are no fat, balding, left-handed, blind-in-one-eye (in that combination) characters. I know there are many of us out there and I demand representation on a TV show that means nothing in the grand scheme of things. And if anyone is against that type of character appearing in Star Trek they are obviously bigoted against fat, balding, left-handed, blind-in-one-eye people.

These types of threads are to a point of being a f**king joke, reminding me of the Janeway threads in TrekLit. If you feel Trek doesn't entertain you in the way you want to be entertained... take your eyeballs and dollars elsewhere. Then if there is enough people who take their money elsewhere... TPTB will re-evaluate their position. Because, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you're black or white, gay or straight... it only matters what your groups interest represents to the general revenue stream. The only thing that matters is how much "green" you represent.

 

[T'Girl]

It's hurts me that there are no fat, balding, left-handed, blind-in-one-eye (in that combination) characters.

True Grit is in the theaters, sound like old Rooster Cogburn is right up your alley.

 

[BillJ]

It's hurts me that there are no fat, balding, left-handed, blind-in-one-eye (in that combination) characters.

True Grit is in the theaters, sound like old Rooster Cogburn is right up your alley.

 

[Hathaway Brown]

These types of responses are why you never have honest discussions about these types of issues. Obviously, if you want a good reason for a gay character to be present... your bigoted and against all gays everywhere in perpetuity.

I fail to see why my reply is why there are no "honest discussions".

I'm not sure about that last line... do you think I'm against gays on the show?

Then you have the case of Lieutenant Hawk... who was nothing but a redshirt destined to get skewered by the Borg. People bitch because he was suppose to be gay. Great... but if they had shown him to be gay and then get skewered by the Borg we'd have thread upon thread about how TPTB hate gays because of what they did to Hawk. Give me a break.

If the lack of a character on a TV show that is like you is that damaging to your psyche, then you need to go and re-evaluate who you are.

It doesn't "damage my psyche" that there's no gay character on a show. It'd be nice, but hey we can't have everything now can we?

The only thing that matters is how much "green" you represent.

Can't argue there. Sad fact of TV.

 

[BillJ]

These types of responses are why you never have honest discussions about these types of issues. Obviously, if you want a good reason for a gay character to be present... your bigoted and against all gays everywhere in perpetuity.

I fail to see why my reply is why there are no "honest discussions".

I'm not sure about that last line... do you think I'm against gays on the show?

Then you have the case of Lieutenant Hawk... who was nothing but a redshirt destined to get skewered by the Borg. People bitch because he was suppose to be gay. Great... but if they had shown him to be gay and then get skewered by the Borg we'd have thread upon thread about how TPTB hate gays because of what they did to Hawk. Give me a break.

If the lack of a character on a TV show that is like you is that damaging to your psyche, then you need to go and re-evaluate who you are.

It doesn't "damage my psyche" that there's no gay character on a show. It'd be nice, but hey we can't have everything now can we?

The only thing that matters is how much "green" you represent.

Can't argue there. Sad fact of TV.

No, I don't think your against gays on the show. I was just perplexed as too why you see TPTB handling of Hawk as careless.

I disagree about the 'sad fact of TV' line... CBS/Paramount are not a charitable entity, their goal is to get as many people to watch their shows as possible, to generate as much revenue as possible for the company shareholders.

TV economics will never support a show like Star Trek being made without advertiser support. Advertisers like eyeballs...

 

[Hathaway Brown]

What's TPTB?

And the careless comment - that was a joke as he was careless in allowing himself to get assimilated in the first place!

As for TV, I fully appreciate that CBS are out to make money, which is a sad fact of TV that they can't always produce 100% of what they should and have to consider making themselves advertiser friendly.

 

[USS Triumphant]

What's TPTB?

"The Powers That Be". Brannon, Braga, Roddenberry, Les Moonves. Obama. And above all else, ME!

 

[Hathaway Brown]

ooh I see! I sat there for a while trying to think of a Trek related acronym but just couldnt crack it!

 

[Expendable]

I don't think that the argument that people will not tune in for a gay character is a bit absurd...

Best TNG ratings: Spring 1992 - 11.5 million
Best Will & Grace Ratings: Spring 2002 - 17.3 million (tied with Spring 2001)