Didn't we already see that with Miles and Julian?
Seriously, though, I've only seen maybe a dozen DS9 eps, but I swear I saw one where there was a not-so-subtle gay subtext between those two.
Do you think LGBT characters will feature more prominently?
- Thread starter Curios_Gelatin
- Start date
- Status
Didn't we already see that with Miles and Julian?
Seriously, though, I've only seen maybe a dozen DS9 eps, but I swear I saw one where there was a not-so-subtle gay subtext between those two.
A
Amaris
Guest
@ihno already answered it: a character that doesn't insult gay people, primarily by not being stereotypical and playing into biases straight people may have about them. In other words, having two very attractive women making out in the ship's commissary would be "inauthentic."
Didn't we already see that with Miles and Julian?
Seriously, though, I've only seen maybe a dozen DS9 eps, but I swear I saw one where there was a not-so-subtle gay subtext between those two.
An authentic scene may be to have something to that effect, but not play it for laughs, or as if it's somehow inappropriate. I do feel that Julian and Miles had a very strong friendship, but it often played to the "I really hate that guy" comedy trope, and that ruined any real opportunities (if they would have existed at the time) of furthering such a relationship into romantic territory.
Now Garak and Julian is another story.
A
Amaris
Guest
I sincerely believe that could have worked. I hate that they told Andrew Robinson to dial it back.
TPTB got so scared of the Garek/Julian chemistry they hardly ever let them share scenes together after that point.
It could have been great.
Garak: Would you like to go to dinner?
Julian: Is this a spy mission?
Garak: ...Sure.
Garak: Would you like to go to dinner?
Julian: Is this a spy mission?
Garak: ...Sure.
A
Amaris
Guest
Their chemistry was so strong that I still vividly remember each lunch scene they had together. It was some of the best TV to watch, because when they were on screen together, they didn't feel like scripted characters on a TV show, they felt like real, complex living beings.
Being gay is in itself not a big issue. To gay people it is a fact of life. They want to be treated as people, not as gay people. When homosexuality is presented as a by the by in Discovery and no fuss is made about it, then it will be a positive portrayal of "authenticity".
But heterosexuals whose chromosomes, outside appearance and mental inner workings form a single concrete unit are the norm.
To homosexuals who aren't comfortable with their sexuality it is far better if they see media representations of their group as just another aspect of normal life. Nichols's Uhura was such a positive example in the 60s because she was just one of the guys. Her skin color was not the defining aspect of her character. Sexuality also should not be treated as the sole defining aspect of a character that happens to be gay.
You ever tried to make a kid eat their vegetables? And they really dug their heals in, but you're an adult, so it doesn't matter how hard they fight you, eventually they are going to eat that Zucchini casserole, even if it means that your evening is ruined?
Star Trek is a spoiled child sitting arms folded, holding it's breath, refusing to represent LGBT culture, testing our resolve, looking for any hint of weakness or compromise.
Subtle and realistic comes later.
This is first blood.
Gimme some big gay Trek, or go home.
Star Trek is a spoiled child sitting arms folded, holding it's breath, refusing to represent LGBT culture, testing our resolve, looking for any hint of weakness or compromise.
Subtle and realistic comes later.
This is first blood.
Gimme some big gay Trek, or go home.
Last edited:
Their "gayness" will be fully realized and be recognizes as a integral part of who they are.
And not a matter of it being something they "just happen to be."
Except "fuss" was made of previous characters heterosexuality, not making a equal fuss about a gay character's sexuality would be one way to have them disappear a someone who is gay.
In previous Star Trek series, who found out in a season or two about the main character's sexual orientations.
Last edited:
The approach Star Trek Beyond took is preferable.
And homosexual characters should be treating in exactly the same manner. That's the "no fuss"-approach I'd prefer to see.
Maybe there are some misunderstandings here.
What you individually mean if you say "fuss" (or "just happens to be")?
Does "fuss" mean questions like "when did you find out you're hetero
sexual?" "What did your parents say?"
or does "fuss" mean showing human relationships? Like some - slightly more conservative ones - who always feel offended, umimportant how little gayness is shown on the screen.
It's not unlike using the word "normal" - which can mean "standard" or "healthy" and a lot of other things.
I understand "not making a big fuss" as not talking about homosexuality as a phenomenon, which the writers might want to do to educate the audience.
But still showing relationships, which of course you can only do if you have more than one gay or lesbian character.
What you individually mean if you say "fuss" (or "just happens to be")?
Does "fuss" mean questions like "when did you find out you're hetero
sexual?" "What did your parents say?"or does "fuss" mean showing human relationships? Like some - slightly more conservative ones - who always feel offended, umimportant how little gayness is shown on the screen.
It's not unlike using the word "normal" - which can mean "standard" or "healthy" and a lot of other things.
I understand "not making a big fuss" as not talking about homosexuality as a phenomenon, which the writers might want to do to educate the audience.
But still showing relationships, which of course you can only do if you have more than one gay or lesbian character.
A mass grave in space where all the gay babies were dumped before they made any straights feel uncomfortable?
Except STB took such a subtle approach that there are people refusing to accept that that guy was even Sulu's husband, making the argument they were brothers. It clearly wasn't the intention, but I need my gay characters to be a little bit less subtle, especially when we're breaking new ground for Trek in diversity.
I seriously doubt Discovery will be that coy, and it shouldn't be. Gays should be treated normally, the same as everyone else, and that includes not pussyfooting around on partners showing affection, people openly discussing their love lives and interests.
A
Amaris
Guest
Are you okay with seeing a same sex relationship? Star Trek is chock full of romances.
Subtle
A scene in Discovery -
Captain X asks Commander Y, who is a human female - Heard from your wife lately _____?
Commander Y replies - yes , says she misses me badly
Conversation continues on how hard it is to be separated from family
Not so subtle
A love scene between Male Y and Male X (can be human or another species)
Both can work in the show
A scene in Discovery -
Captain X asks Commander Y, who is a human female - Heard from your wife lately _____?
Commander Y replies - yes , says she misses me badly
Conversation continues on how hard it is to be separated from family
Not so subtle
A love scene between Male Y and Male X (can be human or another species)
Both can work in the show
Some or many writers can be less effective writing for particular characters. I think most fans agree Piller, Taylor, Menosky and Braga were at least OK writers (I wouldn't say Fuller was clearly better) and yet they made Chakotay a mediocre character and an at least somewhat stereotypical character (with much disagreement about the degree, with some, including me, thinking he was only a little stereotypical a few times but others thinking he was pretty stereotypical often). And yet I agree that minority group characters shouldn't be excluded even if the writers will probably make some missteps.
- Status
Similar threads
