Spoilers Dr. Hugh Culber Despite Yourself Spoilers!

[DS9Continuing]

Put it this way. To use a term I absolutely loathe... it triggers us.

The new situation may only relate to the old situation in the most superficial of ways, but it nevertheless reminds us of the old situation and all the old feelings of persecution and being targeted come flooding right back.

Is that the fault of the new situation? Perhaps not, but it still would have been nicer for us if they had chosen to not go there.

.

 

[cultcross]

Can't have it both ways where you get treated like everyone else AND get special treatment.

Settle for the first one. When that's achieved, it won't matter who they kill. But when it's the first gay couple in the fifty year history of the franchise, that has yet to be achieved, and killing them in their first season for the sake of a dramatic beat does matter.

 

[{ Emilia }]

If the only reason they had to kill him is to eventually have some epic, dramatic love story then... ugh.
I hope it won't be anything absurd. Maybe he just wasn't dead. You don't immediately die with a broken neck depending on what happens.

 

[Feron]

Settle for the first one. When that's achieved, it won't matter who they kill. But when it's the first gay couple in the fifty year history of the franchise, that has yet to be achieved, and killing them in their first season for the sake of a dramatic beat does matter.

IMHO, it only matters if they stay dead and the killing removes them from the story.

We've already been told that Dr. Culber will be back. Unless they handle his return horribly, all that they've done is amplify viewer interest in him and Stamets by a magnitude.

I'm sure that there are now a lot of viewers who were apathetic about these issues who are now more engaged precisely because this dramatic turn of events has captured their attention. Happy and safe = boring and ignored.

 

[Feron]

If the only reason they had to kill him is to eventually have some epic, dramatic love story then... ugh.
I hope it won't be anything absurd. Maybe he just wasn't dead. You don't immediately die with a broken neck depending on what happens.

Exactly. He was attacked in sickbay. If a doctor or nurse found him quickly it is possible that they can make a believable recovery story for him.

 

[Fateor]

Settle for the first one. When that's achieved, it won't matter who they kill. But when it's the first gay couple in the fifty year history of the franchise, that has yet to be achieved, and killing them in their first season for the sake of a dramatic beat does matter.

So far franchise wise there are have been somewhere between 20 to 30 main characters.

Statistically speaking Star Trek is far far ahead of the mark.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Exactly. He was attacked in sickbay. If a doctor or nurse found him quickly it is possible that they can make a believable recovery story for him.

Plus, you can't actually kill somebody by twisting their neck quickly.

TV Tropes fun.

 

[Feron]

Plus, you can't actually kill somebody by twisting their neck quickly.

TV Tropes fun.

LOL, every time that I've seen Tyler do his "neck twist kill move", I internally hear a Mike Myers' Austin Powers voice saying: "Judo Chop!" I also laugh at Lorca's Kirk-style double handed punches too.

 

[Scout101]

Didn't kill him BECAUSE he was gay, or you'd have a point. Even better, their sexuality wasn't a plot point AT ALL (I consider this progress in the right direction). No one commented on it, they didn't have to prance around and act flamboyant, it wasn't a factor. they were just another couple, and it was left at that.

In fact, of the 3 couplings presented so far (Captain/Admiral, Burnham/Tyler, Doc/Stamets) (I'm terrible at their names, btw), this is the only relationship that was presented as normal or healthy in any way. that IS them being treated as normal and accepted from what I can see. And the death (if permanent) was because the audience would care, not getting rid of the token gay or fixing a mistake. killing someone you care about to raise the stakes. Sexuality had nothing to do with it. what was the sexual orientation of the guy Burnham killed in the elevator? Also not a factor.

Sorry if you're trigged by that, but not sure how else to present it. If you want the toy included in the toybox, can't also insist that it stays in its packaging and the writers can't play with it. if you want a token gay character to just sit in the background and never have anything bad happen, to each his own, but I'd rather they get into the fray with everyone else, and both good and bad things happen. Just like any other character where sexuality isn't important to the plot. Otherwise, you get your token gay, but he doesn't matter and no one cares.

Cultcross, what IS the number of episodes that he would have had to be in before it would be acceptable to kill him (or have anything bad happen)? You're implying it was bad because it was season 1, but is season 2 ok? Season 4? 7 seasons and a movie? Seems a silly and arbitrary point. Plus, if you're worried that the gay character got killed after not being in Trek for 50 years, may want to remind yourself that there's still another one in the senior staff and the credit run. Didn't just introduce a gay character to check the box and then kill them. One DID lose a love interest, though, which usually results in more screen/story time for the survivor of those sorts of events...

 

[{ Emilia }]

LOL, every time that I've seen Tyler do his "neck twist kill move", I internally hear a Mike Myers' Austin Powers voice saying: "Judo Chop!" I also laugh at Lorca's Kirk-style double handed punches too.

Man, the double-handed punches are such a Trek fist fight tradition. All the shows are full of them. I'm sure I've seen Kira do them as well.

They can change the Klingons but getting rid of that "fighting style" would totally make this a full reboot.

 

[cultcross]

Didn't kill him BECAUSE he was gay,

As we've said several times already in the thread, nobody is claiming that they did.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

... Even better, their sexuality wasn't a plot point AT ALL (I consider this progress in the right direction). No one commented on it, they didn't have to prance around and act flamboyant, it wasn't a factor. they were just another couple, and it was left at that...

I agree. Culber isn't treated by the writers as "The Gay Doctor". He's simply "A doctor". Culber and Stamets aren't treated by the writers as "The Gay Couple". They are instead treated as simply as "a couple".

Culber is just a character whose sexual orientation just happens to be homosexual, just like (say, McCoy, for example) was a character whose sexual orientation just happened to be heterosexual. McCoy's sexual orientation did not define him and was not a character trait, and neither does Culber's sexual orientation define him and acts as a character trait...

...I mean, whose sexual orientation today IS a character trait, anyway? Maybe there are some examples of this in today's TV and films, but I can't think of any at the moment, at least not in any serious TV or film. Heck, even Kirk's sexual orientation did not define him. Sure -- he was amorous, but if he had a "guy in every port" instead of a "girl in every port", he could still be the same character he was (1960s thoughts on the subject nontwithstanding).

So why should Culber's character be treated any differently just because he happened to be gay and happened to be in a gay relationship? I think TV and film has come too far to have a character's sexual orientation become a defining factor in how that character's storytelling get written. That's just taking a step backwards.

 

[{ Emilia }]

People have waited decades for Star Trek to finally include a regular and positive gay relationship. And for them to achieve that and then kill one half of them off after 10 episodes just feels silly from a meta point of view.

That doesn't mean it's terrible TV.

Imagine they'd killed off Janeway or Sisko after a few episodes, considering their importance to fandom as the first meaningful female captain and black commander and series lead. I'm sure plenty of white guys would've said: "What's wrong with killing them after a few episodes! You want them to be treated like other characters, right?!".

 

[eschaton]

I don't care if he "comes back" due to pseudoscience treknobabble because it's been done multiple times before. But if they have Culber's "spirit" somehow living on in the spore network and Stamets contacting him that way, I seriously might stop watching the show. There is no afterlife (as far as we know) is one of the fundamentals of the Trek universe. Adding "ghosts" would just be a bridge too far.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I hope it's not spirit, too.

Although I suspect that whether it's Stamets Gary Mitchellizing Culber back to life, or the other docs in sickbay healing him, there'll be an equal amount of grumbling either way. For everyone who complains about 'magical healing powers', there'll be somebody complaining about how Culber can get his neck snapped and survive.

 

[Longinus]

I don't care if he "comes back" due to pseudoscience treknobabble because it's been done multiple times before. But if they have Culber's "spirit" somehow living on in the spore network and Stamets contacting him that way, I seriously might stop watching the show. There is no afterlife (as far as we know) is one of the fundamentals of the Trek universe. Adding "ghosts" would just be a bridge too far.

Yeah, seriously.

 

[Longinus]

I hope it's not spirit, too.

Although I suspect that whether it's Stamets Gary Mitchellizing Culber back to life, or the other docs in sickbay healing him, there'll be an equal amount of grumbling either way. For everyone who complains about 'magical healing powers', there'll be somebody complaining about how Culber can get his neck snapped and survive.

Picard survived a knife through his heart and that did not happen on a sickbay.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I hope it's not spirit, too.

Although I suspect that whether it's Stamets Gary Mitchellizing Culber back to life, or the other docs in sickbay healing him, there'll be an equal amount of grumbling either way. For everyone who complains about 'magical healing powers', there'll be somebody complaining about how Culber can get his neck snapped and survive.

Meh. Scotty was magically brought back to life, as well as McCoy. Those never really bothered me.

Nor was I ever bothered that in "TNG: Cause and Effect" the Enterprise was so lucky to have experienced their Wibbily Wobbly Timey Wimey™ issues at the same moment that they exploded.

 

[Scout101]

Imagine they'd killed off Janeway or Sisko after a few episodes, considering their importance to fandom as the first meaningful female captain and black commander and series lead. I'm sure plenty of white guys would've said: "What's wrong with killing them after a few episodes! You want them to be treated like other characters, right?!".

Little different in that they were the Captains and not supporting cast, no? Would you have the same reaction if on DS9, for example, Bashir and Rom were both black, and Rom got killed off? No. The series wasn't about Rom, he's a support character. Bashir was much more integral to the crew/story. But neither was the Captain.

Culber wasn't the series lead, and wasn't even high up on the list. Stamets is the gay character that's important and integral to the story, Culber isn't. And neither of them is the Captain, or even Burnham, who is notionally the lead character.

Did I miss where Culber was promoted as the face of the series? Nice character, but wasn't even the lead gay character, much less lead character.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Whether or not they're the series lead doesn't reduce the importance they have to people.

Uhura was important to people without being the series lead. She meant a lot to many people of colour, just like Janeway meant a lot to women and Sisko meant a lot. Killing them off after a few episodes would've left a sour taste in people's mouths.

Same for Stamets/Colber.