Spoilers 1st openly gay character.

[GeekUSACarl]

So, again, how would it be different if the couple were straight?

Aside from categorically, us discussing a homosexual relationship my gripe wouldn't be any different.

Adding romance just "cause" we wanna do something like highlight hot girls, or gratuitous sex scenes, or highlight homosexuality all kinda tugs on my pet peeve chain.

And when I say pet peeve I really mean it, in no way did the Sulu moment make the film any less bad than it already was.

I simply think romance, non germane to the story is just kinda silly.

Like, the Arrow,

but done, really germane to character and plot I think it's gret

Like, Jeri Hogarth.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So it's a race? whoever gets to it first is better?

Either way I think the way Orville did it was perfect.

There was a social issue, that created a conflict that gave us deeper understanding between important crewmembers. Their disagreements, the scenes when they are together away from work. I thought it was top notch.

Star Trek has been around for 50 years. Orville has been around for 5 weeks. "Serious" Gay characters have been part of the TV landscape for the better part of two decades, but not on Star Trek. So, frankly Star Trek was left in the dust on this issue years ago. Which is a sad commentary on Trek's "progressive" credibility. OTOH, Orville having a same sex couple on the show isn't ground breaking in 2017, either. But they do get points for having an episode addressing gender identity and sexual reassignment.

As for presenting LBGTQ characters in entertainment, I think the "Doctor Who" method is best: LBGTQ people are everywhere and it's totally normal and matter of fact, rather than the "On a very special episode" spotlight approach we see on many shows.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Star Trek has been around for 50 years. Orville has been around for 5 weeks. "Serious" Gay characters have been part of the TV landscape for the better part of two decades, but not on Star Trek. So, frankly Star Trek was left in the dust on this issue years ago. Which is a sad commentary on Trek's "progressive" credibility. OTOH, Orville having a same sex couple on the show isn't ground breaking in 2017, either. But they do get points for having an episode addressing gender identity and sexual reassignment.

LBGTQ people are everywhere and it's totally normal and matter of fact

Statistically inaccurate. Most surveys show that gays make up somewhere between 1.5% to 6% of the global population. I would go with the lower end of that. Gay lobby groups and left wing pollsters always like to over egg the pudding.

 

[Amaris]

Statistically inaccurate. Most surveys show that gays make up somewhere between 1.5% to 6% of the global population. I would go with the lower end of that. Gay lobby groups and left wing pollsters always like to over egg the pudding.

What is statistically inaccurate about the statement "LGBTQ people are everywhere"? There are no numbers in it, nor does it assign any kind of value beyond "everywhere," which doesn't indicate volume, only presence.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Star Trek has been around for 50 years. Orville has been around for 5 weeks. "Serious" Gay characters have been part of the TV landscape for the better part of two decades, but not on Star Trek. So, frankly Star Trek was left in the dust on this issue years ago. Which is a sad commentary on Trek's "progressive" credibility. OTOH, Orville having a same sex couple on the show isn't ground breaking in 2017, either. But they do get points for having an episode addressing gender identity and sexual reassignment.

As for presenting LBGTQ characters in entertainment, I think the "Doctor Who" method is best: LBGTQ people are everywhere and it's totally normal and matter of fact, rather than the "On a very special episode" spotlight approach we see on many shows.

So?

Star trek is a better or worse show because of whether or not it has a gay person in it?

 

[Amaris]

So?

Star trek is a better or worse show because of whether or not it has a gay person in it?

It is better, because then it begins to truly represent a future it wants to portray.

 

[pst]

So?

Star trek is a better or worse show because of whether or not it has a gay person in it?

it's better if it has gay characters in it.

 

[JediMindMeld]

It is better, because then it begins to truly represent a future it wants to portray.

Head. Nail.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Statistically inaccurate. Most surveys show that gays make up somewhere between 1.5% to 6% of the global population. I would go with the lower end of that. Gay lobby groups and left wing pollsters always like to over egg the pudding.

Is there a reason you cut out the first part of my statement?
Also, what @Coloratura said.

 

[Tenacity]

Its still a same sex couple
To use that descriptive term instead of gay.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So?

Star trek is a better or worse show because of whether or not it has a gay person in it?

Better. The show likes to identify as being progressive and inclusive. Talk it and more importantly walk it.

 

[Greg Cox]

The idea that such a portrayal is forced really only works if one takes hetero relationships as "the norm" and gay ones as being somehow "abnormal", something that should be drawn attention to and commented on when you see them. I get that what you are really talking about is tokenism but the sense that a fleeting glimpse of a gay couple is somehow a forced statement doesn't wash in light of the thousands of straight ones we accept without taking as political commentary.

The whole thing works best if two people hugging are taken as just that, two people hugging, without needing it to be a statement.

Bingo. One of my pet peeves is the double standard where any hint of homosexuality is treated as "an agenda" or "unnecessary" or "irrelevant"--even though straight characters routinely display their orientation all the time. It honestly seems as though too many conservative-type viewers are blind to just how often movie and shows and books and comics signal that their characters are straight, in ways large and small, but act as though any comparable bit with gay characters has to be justified somehow.

Look at just the first three eps of Star Trek: "The Cage" has the whole Pike/Vina thing, plus some teasing stuff with the other two women. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" pairs off Gary Mitchell and the Sally Kellerman character and also finds time for Gary to tease Kirk about some blonde he almost married years ago. "Mantrap" not only establishes a lost love in McCoy's past, but the Salt Vampire is constantly luring its victims by posing as an attractive member of the opposite sex. (And need I mention our heroes ogling the belly dancer in "Wolf in the Fold"? Talk about rubbing their heterosexuality in our faces!)

Sex and romance have been part of STAR TREK since Day One, yet God forbid that Trek somehow squeeze in a gay character somewhere without it being absolutely necessary to the plot . . ..
.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

It is better, because then it begins to truly represent a future it wants to portray.

That isn't the point of the string of quotes involved.

This show JUST came out, and the original question was based off the suggestion that the orville, which came out earlier, was better because it has a gay character first.

When Discovery came out just a couple weeks ago, and yes, has a gay character.

Somehow it dissolved into this.

Either way, Discovery has an openly gay character, but if it didn't and had superb writing and great acting, it would simply be not a good show, and orville would be better SOLELY because of that?

None of the other social cues would matter, it's being judged solely based on the non-existent idea that there is no gay person in it?

 

[Butters]

I don't like romance romance in Trek, but good drama needs high emotional stakes for the characters. Self sacrifice for a loved one is a common enough motive, and in 2017, it shouldn't matter what genital groupings are involved, so long as it believable.

Whether the science guy in episode 3 was in a relationship with his friend on the other ship, I don't know, but the feeling was there. We don't need a gay version of the T'pol /trip decon shower scene just to make a point, haven't managed to un-see the straight version yet.

I think trek should have gay characters because some people are gay. It doesn't matter what the stats are. Given the size of starfleet, statistically , at least one star ship must be 100% gay.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Better. The show likes to identify as being progressive and inclusive. Talk it and more importantly walk it.

the show has historically liked to identify a show that portrays a certain future,

keep in mind it DOES have a gay person.

But, in the future, is there some expectation that a gay person would be on every ship in the fleet?

percentages of society as a whole doesn't always work out that since six percent of our population is gay it means six percent of every pool of people is gay.

From watching star trek it seems their M.O. hasn't been to include everyone of every kind but portray a future where these things weren't an issue.

I wouldn't judge well written scripts and well acted shows simply because there isn't a gay character.

That's just me.

 

[Amaris]

That isn't the point of the string of quotes involved.

This show JUST came out, and the original question was based off the suggestion that the orville, which came out earlier, was better because it has a gay character first.

When Discovery came out just a couple weeks ago, and yes, has a gay character.

Somehow it dissolved into this.

Either way, Discovery has an openly gay character, but if it didn't and had superb writing and great acting, it would simply be not a good show, and orville would be better SOLELY because of that?

None of the other social cues would matter, it's being judged solely based on the non-existent idea that there is no gay person in it?

I don't think anyone here has suggested one gay person is what makes the show better or worse, just that The Orville started doing it out of the gate (not only having a same sex relationship, but a complex one), where Trek had to work up to it long past the time when it was already acceptable. Hell, Enterprise could have made it work in the early 2000s, when there were shows on television with gay people, shows that were popular, and it didn't. That doesn't make Discovery better by default, but it does put Discovery ahead on the Star Trek front when it comes to perceived rights verses actual rights as we see them on the screen.

 

[Nerys Myk]

This show JUST came out, and the original question was based off the suggestion that the orville, which came out earlier, was better because it has a gay character first.

Star Trek has been around for 50 years. That it's taken the sixth series and five decades to have a gay character doesn't look good for a show that claims to be progressive.

 

[Greg Cox]

Bottom line: STAR TREK needs more gay characters because we can't keep coasting on "the first interracial kiss" thing forever.

Trek was ahead of the curve back in the sixties, but has fallen behind the average family sitcom on this front. Here's hoping DISCOVERY finally remedies that.

 

[Michael]

Bottom line: STAR TREK needs more gay characters because we can't keep coasting on "the first interracial kiss" thing forever.

Trek was ahead of the curve back in the sixties, but had fallen behind the average sitcom on this front.

Which, really, is the reason Discovery really needed to feature a transgender character. Dropping the ball on this one, again.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Star Trek has been around for 50 years. That it's taken the sixth series and five decades to have a gay character doesn't look good for a show that claims to be progressive.

Again so?

I don't think not having a character of "a" type doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

I think the idea that the orville did it 2 weeks earlier, makes it "better" socially than Discovery is a little strange of a concept.

I think it's a little much to expect Star Trek to cover every social cue imaginable "on time"

It has a gay character, seemingly, a person who puts their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else, I don't even think it's odd that there wasn't a gay character up until the reboot. Like they didn't handle a plethora of other complicated scenarios that no one else was either.

It just seems like a weird benchmark.