Good point, although the audience for sci-fi would be less than a sitcom anyway. Still it at least proved many people weren't bothered.
The Next Captain
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
Isn't Dr.Who bi? I mean the idea that it wouldn't or couldn't work seems to be a bit absurd at this point.
I think your talking apples and oranges between the two. Will & Grace was a 30 minute sitcom, Star Trek: The Next Generation was an hour long drama set aboard a military vessel. Believability does become a factor... even aboard a 24th century starship.
But that's beside the point... gay character(s) can work on Star Trek, but it's a tight-rope to walk. While Star Trek leans towards the liberal side of the political fence... it has a pretty large conservative fan-base as well. So like any political football, how far left can you push before you lose the right? And will that gain be large enough to offset the losses you take from the right?
I think your talking apples and oranges between the two. Will & Grace was a 30 minute sitcom, Star Trek: The Next Generation was an hour long drama set aboard a military vessel. Believability does become a factor... even aboard a 24th century starship.
But that's beside the point... gay character(s) can work on Star Trek, but it's a tight-rope to walk. While Star Trek leans towards the liberal side of the political fence... it has a pretty large conservative fan-base as well. So like any political football, how far left can you push before you lose the right? And will that gain be large enough to offset the losses you take from the right?
Well considering that Star Trek has virtually removed the concept of capitalism and religion from humans, the two things most dear to modern conservatives, I'm not really too awful concerned with losings them with a gay character. If they haven't left already, a gay character isn't going to push a material number of them over the edge.
We'll have to disagree on the capitalism point... as we have seen it in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th century shows.
You'd be surprised at what can push a conservative over the edge. All it would take would be a quick blurb on Fox News and a disapproving look from the anchor and you'd see conservative Trekkies in the streets burning their stuff.
We'll have to disagree on the capitalism point... as we have seen it in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th century shows.
You'd be surprised at what can push a conservative over the edge. All it would take would be a quick blurb on Fox News and a disapproving look from the anchor and you'd see conservative Trekkies in the streets burning their stuff.
Actually we don't have to disagree on the capitalism point. On Earth and within the Federation, money is not used. It is only used externally. DS9 shows this to be the case.
Believability? In what? I'm a bit lost.
You mean to tell me that someone would not believe the show because there was a gay character?
In a crew of over a thousand on the Enterprise-E there wasn't one solitary gay? That, even by today's standards is hard to believe, let alone for the c24th.
Extremely hard to believe considering the hoopla over Don't ask dont tell...
We'll have to disagree on the capitalism point... as we have seen it in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th century shows.
You'd be surprised at what can push a conservative over the edge. All it would take would be a quick blurb on Fox News and a disapproving look from the anchor and you'd see conservative Trekkies in the streets burning their stuff.
Actually we don't have to disagree on the capitalism point. On Earth and within the Federation, money is not used. It is only used externally. DS9 shows this to be the case.
Actually we see Federation (human) people purchasing things as early as Encounter at Farpoint, long before the no money non-sense. We also see them referencing pay and the cost of putting an officer through the Academy (Star Trek).
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Money
There are probably crewmembers of numerous sexual persuasions serving aboard all Federation vessels. But we're talking about shows in the here and now, where "Don't ask, don't tell" is still in force (hopefully coming to an end soon per Congress and the President). So showing openly serving "gay" crewmembers may still come off as a stretch for some TV viewers.
Sure we have DADT (for now) but as its abolition is another evolution of society, I can't see how it would be a stretch for Star Trek.
We'll have to disagree on the capitalism point... as we have seen it in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th century shows.
You'd be surprised at what can push a conservative over the edge. All it would take would be a quick blurb on Fox News and a disapproving look from the anchor and you'd see conservative Trekkies in the streets burning their stuff.
Actually we don't have to disagree on the capitalism point. On Earth and within the Federation, money is not used. It is only used externally. DS9 shows this to be the case.
Actually we see Federation (human) people purchasing things as early as Encounter at Farpoint, long before the no money non-sense. We also see them referencing pay and the cost of putting an officer through the Academy (Star Trek).
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Money
There are probably crewmembers of numerous sexual persuasions serving aboard all Federation vessels. But we're talking about shows in the here and now, where "Don't ask, don't tell" is still in force (hopefully coming to an end soon per Congress and the President). So showing openly serving "gay" crewmembers may still come off as a stretch for some TV viewers.
And warp drive doesn't come across as a stretch? I mean come on... If we were really worried about a stretch we wouldn't have sci-fi.
And on the issue of capitalism in Trek, everything TNG forward eschews capitalism as a behavior of less civilized groups such as the Ferengi.
Took the words right out of my mouth!
Actually I was pondering this "believability" angle today and thought about a TV show that aired this Autumn in the UK.
Downton Abbey was set in the eponymous house in 1912, and within the first half hour of the pilot episode we find the head footman having a quick snog with a visiting Duke in his boudoir. He then tries it on with the Ambassador of the Ottoman Empire in the next episode (but came off worse for it!)
That certainly didn't put off people watching it, it garnered some of the highest ratings this year. 10.7m to be precise.
I never heard anyone say "that would have never happened" or "the detail is spot on, right down to the light swtiches but what I can't believe is one of the staff was gay!"
So in that regard having one on the bridge of the USS Whatsitsname is no different.
Warp drive is no different than the engine of a car for storytelling purposes. It allows the characters to move from point A to point B as the story dictates.
That's no difference to the characters preferences. It is as much a part of the story as the technology.
I have a similar disagreement concerning religion. Kirk made it clear that he is a monotheist (of some kind). the episode Data's Day showed a open Earth religion ceremony taking place on the Enterprise Dee. Both the Vulcans and the Bajorians are obviously religious as well. Tuvok's letter from his wife showed the latter quite clearly.
Well I'm as queer as a three dollar bill and I'm also fairly conservative politically and surprisingly conservative socially. No way in hell I'm burning my Trek stuff, I spent MONEY on it.
Not quite, In over seven hundred hours of Star Trek there were a only three or four "no money" references made during three episodes and one movie, there are dozens of references to there being money in the Federation (separated from the Ferengi), also capitalism, private property, commercial businesses. The "no money" thing would seem to be a philosophy held by only a few individuals, and not the society/culture as a whole.
Out of a group of a thousand, regardless if the 21st century or the 24th century, there would be about the same number of gays in the group, the number wouldn't increase or decrease based upon prevailing social mores.
You don't become gay.
The Ferengi and of course Ezri Dax's own family.
Since the show is about a spaceship exploring the galaxy, you need something that allows them to move from point A to point B to move the story along. Relationship drama (straight or gay) is not required to move the story along.
Which brings me back to my original point... if they insert a pair of hot, fornicating lesbians into Star Trek, I want there to be a valid story reason for the choice. I'm not a big fan of "token"-ism (Look... we have a gay! Aren't we fashionable!).
I'm a huge fan of the ABC sitcom Modern Family. Mitchell Pritchett (and Cameron Tucker) being gay actually serves a story purpose and is presented as quite an interesting contrast to the rest of his family. YMMV.
Same here. Well except for the dollar part. I'm more of a £9 note.
Nope, never said anyone does "become" gay. What I was referring to was the believability thing again. Bill said people would find it hard to believe a gay character, but if you take the crew of the E, the numbers involved would dictate that there would be at least one gay crewmember, so having a gay character as one of the eight on a TV show is not that far fetched.
No one would question the authenticity if a similar scenario TV show set in 2011 would have a gay character.
Agreed. However the show is about the people that crew the ship (or station). We don't watch it to see how turbolift 3 is performing.
I agree there too, I'm not a fan of tokenism. IIRC there was that kiss in DS9 (Dax and one of the old flames) and it served no purpose whatsoever. It was probably there as it was sweeps week or something.
However, as you say there needs to be a purpose, and a gay senior staff character would have that very purpose. Its the way that its handled that is the key.
Just in the same way having Kirk et al playing tonsil hockey with some random alien every week just doesn't really move the story on. However (and its been a while since I've seen DS9) if you take Sisko as an example, he didn't do any of that and slowly fell in love with Kassidy Yates.
Now that was also due to the character still mourning his wife, which all added to the bigger story of Sisko.
It would be no different if they did something similar with a gay character. In fact that would be the best way to do it if you ask me.
Love that show!Again, as I said above, that all works with the show. There's no sensationalism with it. Thats the way they should write any future gay Trek character.
Actually, what I said was that this is still a 21st century TV show. And some audience members may have a problem buying an openly gay person serving aboard a military ship...
I also know that alot of people still don't understand... this is an American TV show created for American viewing audiences. It's easy to go on and on about examples of shows created and geared towards audiences in other countries, but we are a group as unique as any other.
Well I'll give you that, but the majority of the series are set in the c24th and therefore anything is possible.
Just because it doesn't happen now doesn't mean then can't accept it could happen in the future.
Granted I'm looking at this from a British perspective where things are slightly different on our TV, but it hasn't stopped American studios having gay characters in the past and a lot of them were made specifically for US without thought of selling it on.
I don't think the fact that its made for US (and then exported) has much of a bearing - especially as they already know that any new series would have a pretty good chance of being sold abroad due to the global nature of the brand. Plus with the power of the internet its no longer possible to see how it does domestically.
We've often had cancelled series broadcast here long after it was confirmed that the show would no longer be produced.
Actually, the brand does no where near as well overseas' as it does here in the United States.
