Gay Crew members
- Thread starter Guardian452
- Start date
But if we don't allow same sex relationships in our entertainment, then why should there be opposite gender relationships in our entertainment? Why should it be shoved in our faces all the time?
The obsession with demographics is part of the problem, which is partly driven by advertising revenue isn't it? Which is driven by consumerism..?
We have the short skirts, we have the tight, impractical uniforms, we have girdles and unnecessary cleavage. If they thought gay sex was worth selling, they'd be selling it too. They gays only have themselves to blame for staying too far in the closet. How can TPTB measure their demographic if they're all disguised as church-going conservatives?
We have the short skirts, we have the tight, impractical uniforms, we have girdles and unnecessary cleavage. If they thought gay sex was worth selling, they'd be selling it too. They gays only have themselves to blame for staying too far in the closet. How can TPTB measure their demographic if they're all disguised as church-going conservatives?
If tomorrow my wife is diagnosed with breast cancer and has to have a double mastectomy, our relationship will survive. I’ll be devastated, and will always miss seeing and playing with those awesome boobies, but it won’t destroy the love we have for each other.
On the other hand, if that had happened when we had only known each other for a few days, as was the case with Bev and Odan, then yeah, that probably would have been pretty much it for the relationship.
Does that make me shallow?
I agree with the demographics idea. No profits no show.
The idea is that a show that preaches (or where the crew states) that modern humans have evolved beyond being narrow minded, so some would expect to see an example of a same sex couple somewhere.
In theory, the demographic that would watch this type of show wouldn't mind at all then.
In practice, same sex couplings or issues are left out and usually unseen.
We see the issue trying to be dealt with, but in a very, very subtle way, usually by analogies.
Honestly, IMO, it would just be too shocking to present a same sex couple on the show, a little easier to show females, but probably much harder to do with males.
For some reason sitcoms and other tv styles can present it easier.
Female sexuality and certain other types of sexuality are just easier to accept (easier on the eye?) than others.
We've seen polygamous relationships, ones where the males carries the young, weird mating practices, genderless couples, a lot of weird relationships...
The idea is that a show that preaches (or where the crew states) that modern humans have evolved beyond being narrow minded, so some would expect to see an example of a same sex couple somewhere.
In theory, the demographic that would watch this type of show wouldn't mind at all then.
In practice, same sex couplings or issues are left out and usually unseen.
We see the issue trying to be dealt with, but in a very, very subtle way, usually by analogies.
Honestly, IMO, it would just be too shocking to present a same sex couple on the show, a little easier to show females, but probably much harder to do with males.
For some reason sitcoms and other tv styles can present it easier.
Female sexuality and certain other types of sexuality are just easier to accept (easier on the eye?) than others.
We've seen polygamous relationships, ones where the males carries the young, weird mating practices, genderless couples, a lot of weird relationships...
The problem here is that the Bev-Odan situation was -not- depicted as a fling, but as something serious.
Why is female sexuality easier on the eye. I get very little out of it. Two guys is fine with me, and many people, girls included, don't mind seeing two guys kiss.
The idea of girls with girls being 'easier on the eyes' is stupid.
That's only part of it, IMHO. It's easier to do social commentary (Very Special Episodes or even just lower-key social commentary) sort of things on a sitcom than a drama, especially a sci-fi drama that is more/most often an adventure show. Star Trek, for better or worse, is in a genre where viewers are conditioned to shut their brains off and not look at things too closely, as a rule. (They are for sitcoms too, but not quite so much. They still need to get the jokes, after all.) This wasn't so much the case in the 60s, but has really been the case since the 1980s. Trying to do social commentary means viewers have to think about it, or you have to be very...anvilicious. Viewers generally (with good reason) hate anvils, so that option isn't advised.
The other idea is to get viewers to turn their brains on.
This can be a very risky idea. It takes effort. If you force the viewer to expend effort to grasp the message, and they turn out not to like (or want to hear) the message, they will turn around and shoot the messenger, or (just as fatal for a medium that depends on ad revenue) quit listening.
Trying not to sound preachy, but this next part is IMHO more important than anybody admits:
Context is key - TNG was on in the 1980s and early 1990s. 20 to nearly 30 years later, it might for some be forgotten that most of America (not all, but most) was not in the least friendly to same-sex relationships (I could be wrong, but I think homosexuality was still illegal in a few states?), and TNG was a syndicated show, on broadcast TV, dependent for the most part on domestic revenues for the greater part of its revenue stream. If you broadcast stuff that offended any of advertisers, broadcasters, or the communities those broadcasters served, you could find a good number of stations suddenly deciding not to buy (or air) your show. Particularly eps containing controversial content. (One of TNG's episodes was basically banned in Britain because it brought up the IRA, if I recall.)
Yes, this held syndicated shows hostage at times to the more conservative markets' comfort zones. Cable stuff, as you'd really see later, could get away with more than network stuff. Which could afford, in turn, to deal with rather touchier topics than syndicated stuff.
The short version is that people wondering why TNG didn't touch "gay" issues more than obliquely (or just plain 'blink and you miss it') are forgetting that now is not then, in many cases, and it's not really useful to judge then by the standards of now.
Even if the creative folks wanted to, I don't think the executives would have let them - there's no profit in turning people off from watching your show.
I know, the idea is stupid and hypocritical- but notice that on DS9 that's the first and main representation of the subject-female to female.
"Rejoined" it was taken seriously (as it should have been).
But in the mirror universe episodes you have the female to female sensuality and flirting.
It depends on who you ask, but there are some that will have the view that 'female on female action' is hot, while thinking seeing two men hugging is 'too much'.
That's where Penta's view comes in- during that time TNG was in the shadow of the 80's and early 90's and the producers had to worry about controversy.
It's hard for me to peg that relationship, whether it was a 'sweep me off the feet', fling or ongoing relationship-but why didn't he tell her from the beginng he was a Trill?
Laws criminalizing homosexual conduct per se were still in force in 15 states in 2003 when they were struck down by the US Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. Laws excluding gays from legal privileges such as marriage, child adoption, military service, and protection from discrimination in employment and housing, remained in effect and still do.
"The High Ground" has never been shown on the BBC, who have repeated the series in its entirety several times, due to its reference to terrorists (the IRA were not specifically named) forcing the reunification of Ireland.
It was left out of the original first run of TNG on Sky One many years ago, but has since been shown amongst their frequent repeats. I don't think the new rights holders, Virgin 1, have left it out either.
It's the sort of typical dumb, lazy, arrogant line I expect from Americans whenever the subject comes up and never should have made it in to the final script. I expect little else, however, from a country that harbours those who funded the IRA.
I was indeed being a fair bit sarcastic but it was more a dig at the nature of demographics as much as anything else 
. See, now I rather enjoyed Higher Ground. At least it was an effort at addressing the issue and I thought that Beverley did a fair job of trying to persuade the audience that the terrorists were wrong without (as the Federation shouldn't) taking sides in the political debate. What's weird about the whole issue is that the USA has occupied Mexican land for hundreds of years (quite apart from the fact that the entire nation was sort of stolen from native Americans - does anybody (i.e. not of Mexican descent) in the US have a problem with that comparable 'occupation'..? Migration is just part of human development and occupations were a part of that. We need to work on moving past this before water shortages kick in the world over - the Middle Eastern conflict is a prime example of the modern problem.
NuBSG dealt with the terrorist issue in a far more subtle and far more adult way but I understand that they had to fight to tell the stories in the way they wanted. Does anybody know what TPTB wanted to change in that show?
. See, now I rather enjoyed Higher Ground. At least it was an effort at addressing the issue and I thought that Beverley did a fair job of trying to persuade the audience that the terrorists were wrong without (as the Federation shouldn't) taking sides in the political debate. What's weird about the whole issue is that the USA has occupied Mexican land for hundreds of years (quite apart from the fact that the entire nation was sort of stolen from native Americans - does anybody (i.e. not of Mexican descent) in the US have a problem with that comparable 'occupation'..? Migration is just part of human development and occupations were a part of that. We need to work on moving past this before water shortages kick in the world over - the Middle Eastern conflict is a prime example of the modern problem.NuBSG dealt with the terrorist issue in a far more subtle and far more adult way but I understand that they had to fight to tell the stories in the way they wanted. Does anybody know what TPTB wanted to change in that show?
I still don't see that a perceived lack of something is a deliberate policy. There weren't any deaf people on the crew - is that a deliberate slight? There weren't any indigenous American people on the crew until Voyager. Perhaps the biggest omission of all; there weren't any ugly people on the crew.
This is due to the advent of transporter surgery in 2249. Leave those unwanted pounds and wrinkles in the transporter buffer!
OTOH, TNG did show that deaf people do still exist. Also I tend to think people consider deafness a disability where being cured would be desirable. I wouldn't recommend calling gay people disabled or suggesting they get cured.
I
I like the idea that individuals are free to do such things in the 24th century, and yet can still respect one another.
Exactly! Beverly *is* trying to respect Kareel, by trying as best she can to let the other woman down easy and not just say "Sorry, I don't like chicks, now take a hike".
I never got the vibe that it was because Kareel was a woman. Thought it had more to do with the constant changing of bodies. First Odan is Odan, then Odan is Riker, then Odan is Kareel. Sorry it would kinda freak me out to have a lover constantly shifting bodies.
Similar threads
