Do you think LGBT characters will feature more prominently?

[TwoJakes]

As long as it's a show for the family

I get what you're saying, and sometimes (Remmick's head) Star Trek goes too far. However, if the show is going to have heterosexuals in romantic, relationship, family, sexual situations, then it can and should have gays in similar situations.

The show has shown hetero situations (not only sexual) right from the start, pilot one. However the show can be subtle, Riker was a ladies man largely through inference, and not owing to us seeing him hopping from bed to bed.

The show can make clear that a character is gay without having to repeatedly show them in a gay sex scene.

Through the years here on the BBS, many have advocated the gay character being in a steady relationship with a same-sex partner who is depicted by a reoccurring character. The way Barkley, Ogawa or Guinan weren't in every episode, but you knew who they were when they made a appearance.

The partner would share quarters with the gay character, discussing the episode events over lunch, be seen in the background of a "ten forward" scenes talking while principal dialog is going on the the foreground.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm pretty sure new Who is wildly popular with children in the UK. I've read a fair amount about that, including that they wouldn't let Torchwood use the Doctor is a guest role because they didn't want to entice Who;s younger audience to watch the more adult Torchwood.
While having a gay supporting character on Trek wouldn't be seen as all that progressive, having a gay captain probably would still qualify. US sci fi hasn't really embraced a gay male lead yet. But not having any gay characters at this point would be regressive.

You may be correct on the popularity of DW in the UK among children. I just don't necessarily want my children to see it, at least at their ages. That might change. I know that the show started out as a kid's show and progressed from there.

Regardless, I think that having a gay character as part of the tapestry of the show would be ok, and representative of the current population. But, I just fear that it will get the spotlight shown on it as Trek being "progressive."

But, that's probably me getting mired in the details of it. If the characters are good, then I'll be ok. If not, then it really doesn't matter their orientation as I will probably not watch it.

 

[borgboy]

Would you rather new Trek got the spotlight in criticism for poor diversity?
Have you seen much new Who? It seems pretty kid friendly to me.

 

[fireproof78]

I would rather Trek just tell a good stories with interesting characters, not tokens. Please don't take my comments as saying "No gays!" Rather, let it feel unremarkable in that it is part of the tapestry of the world. I think twojakes described it better than I.

As for new Who, define "kid." My kids are 4 and 7, and there are few episodes that I can think of that I would let them watch. That's just me, and mileage will vary.

 

[borgboy]

Nobody is asking for tokens. I have better faith in Fuller than that to start with.
And it's not as if there haven't been het characters in the past with poor development (Merryweather, Harry Kim)

 

[Guy Gardener]

Don't mock tokens.

Tokens are a necessary good start.

We started 40 years ago with Billy Crystal on Soap.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So the question isn't why are we still using Tokens, the question is why are we still starting?

 

[borgboy]

Possibly there's a difference in defining terms here, but I think Jody on Soap was better developed than a token.
That's not to say there wasn't room for improvement. The show didn't understand the difference between gay and trans, and his homosexuality was almost completely hypothetical while they kept getting him into relationships with women.
It was still ground breaking for the 70s and a really fun show.
It is tiresome that some people are still debating where gays can be seen. You can have a gay on that tv show, but not in super hero movies. A hot bi woman in sci fi is acceptable but no queer men. We belong everywhere.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Jodie wanted a sex change near the beginning so that he could be with the man he loved, even if it meant that he didn't have a penis anymore, because the gay man he loved was a football celebrity who could NEVER come out.

My main problem with Jodie is that he kept finding exceptions and loop holes to being gay.

(paraphrasing here big time) "Yes I'm still gay, but I love you, even though you're a woman, I want to live with you! Maybe it's because you're a lesbian, so you're almost like a man, is why I love you?"

 

[borgboy]

Jodie wanted a sex change near the beginning so that he could be with the man he loved, even if it meant that he didn't have a penis anymore, because the gay man he loved was a football celebrity who could NEVER come out.

My main problem with Jodie is that he kept finding exceptions and loop holes to being gay.

(paraphrasing here big time) "Yes I'm still gay, but I love you, even though you're a woman, I want to live with you! Maybe it's because you're a lesbian, so you're almost like a man, is why I love you?"

I completely agree with all of that. I do get that Jodie's sex change plan was motivated by love, and that it was a sacrifice for him, not something he wanted for himself. I just don't think the writing was clear enough on that, especially for a less sophisticated 70s audience. But it was the 70s, and I understand they were far ahead of the curve even if it was flawed.

 

[Guy Gardener]

For the 70s, dear god yes: OUTSTANDING!

I however, watched 4 seasons of soap, in a week, 5 years ago.

I was watching The John Larroquette Show from 1996 a few days ago.

John was sharing an apartment with his wife and his baby momma.

The (middle eastern) landlord starts Screaming in broken English "NO! One Man does not live with Two Women! NO! Not in My building! No!"

John replies "Don't worry! I'm gay!"

Landlord: "No! You're not! Yes, you are? I'll be watching you!"

John starts laughing "Sorry. That's three's Company! Sorry."

Land Lord "You gay. I'm watching you! I'm watching you!"

John "I"m not gay! I'm Not Gay!"

Land Lord "No funny business! You gay! I'm watching You!"

(And it went on like that for a bit.)

 

[borgboy]

That weird thing where the nosy bigoted landlord is ok renting to a gay guy but not a straight guy living with two women.

 

[fireproof78]

Nobody is asking for tokens. I have better faith in Fuller than that to start with.
And it's not as if there haven't been het characters in the past with poor development (Merryweather, Harry Kim)

I don't think anyone is asking for them, so much as I'm afraid that's what will happen.

It might be irrational, or I'm focusing on the wrong thing, or something.

 

[borgboy]

I don't think anyone is asking for them, so much as I'm afraid that's what will happen.

It might be irrational, or I'm focusing on the wrong thing, or something.

I suggest checking out Brian Fuller's other shows - Wonderfalls, Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies, Hannibal. His quality is really strong, and where he's had diversity in his characters, none of them ever felt like a token to me.

 

[fireproof78]

I appreciate the suggestions.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

Through the years here on the BBS, many have advocated the gay character being in a steady relationship with a same-sex partner who is depicted by a reoccurring character. The way Barkley, Ogawa or Guinan weren't in every episode, but you knew who they were when they made a appearance.

The partner would share quarters with the gay character, discussing the episode events over lunch, be seen in the background of a "ten forward" scenes talking while principal dialog is going on the the foreground.

This. I think this is the way to go in the new Trek show.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Federation citizenry is measured into the multihundred trillions in the novels.

Someone's making babies.

 

[borgboy]

Having a fair percent of gay characters still means most people would be straight - and there's bisexuals too.
Not that gay people aren't already having children even now anyways.

 

[Guy Gardener]

No families on Starships until the Enterprise D.

Breeding pairs, straight or gay, won't sign up for Starfleet if they have immediate plans to procreate.

Starfleet is a singles bar?

...

A novel I read claimed that only %2 of Starfleet got permanently assigned to a Starship. Even then the term Starship is variable depending on who is writing. Starship might only mean a large battle cruiser? Star bases or moon bases or asteroid bases or planets, and shuttle pilots... Most Starfleet Officers and the Enlisted spend almost all their careers landlocked and bored painting rocks or guarding doors (during peace time).

 

[borgboy]

Maybe it's just the books I'm thinking of, but George Kirk was a Starfleet man who just his sons when he was home visiting with his wife raising the kids full time, much like military people serving overseas may be separated from their families for long periods.
I did think it was interesting that the Enterprise-E was not a family ship.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Kirk was 16 in the second novel. Probably a decade younger in the first.

I believe George was a security chief on a "space station" before he was recruited in the Starship program by Robert April.

Humans barely had a personal Empire back then, so they were closer to Earth and though their best space ships moved turtlesquely?