Have the new Star Treks lost the progressive edge?

[borgboy]

I read an interview with JJ after his first movie was made where he talked about the history of the gay erasure in Trek and how that something he wanted to correct in STID. He didn't follow thru, so I'm sceptical that he'd have managed it in his next movie either. I am generally a fan of his work - I'm a fan of Alias and Lost too. He tends to do really well with diversity in race, ethnicity but even with the time available to him in television gay characters got very small cameo appearances at best. I'm pretty unforgiving of that when he had such a very large cast on Lost he only managed to have a minor supporting villain be revealed as gay in his last apperance.
I'm completely unfamiliar with Lin's work - sitcoms and racing movies aren't my thing. So while I'm not overly optimistic of Lin's possibilities with Trek, I don't know that I feel he'll do any worse with gay content than JJ. JJ gave promising hope in interviews and no follow thru. Short of actually making the movie homophobic, I don't see where Lin could do any worse on gay content that JJ did.

 

[BillJ]

I read an interview with JJ after his first movie was made where he talked about the history of the gay erasure in Trek and how that something he wanted to correct in STID. He didn't follow thru, so I'm sceptical that he'd have managed it in his next movie either. I am generally a fan of his work - I'm a fan of Alias and Lost too. He tends to do really well with diversity in race, ethnicity but even with the time available to him in television gay characters got very small cameo appearances at best. I'm pretty unforgiving of that when he had such a very large cast on Lost he only managed to have a minor supporting villain be revealed as gay in his last apperance.
I'm completely unfamiliar with Lin's work - sitcoms and racing movies aren't my thing. So while I'm not overly optimistic of Lin's possibilities with Trek, I don't know that I feel he'll do any worse with gay content than JJ. JJ gave promising hope in interviews and no follow thru. Short of actually making the movie homophobic, I don't see where Lin could do any worse on gay content that JJ did.

To be fair, I think what one wants to do and what the studio allows to be done are two distinct things. So I'm not sure where the actual fault lays.

 

[Kelthaz]

Then again, not to sound cynical, but who's to say that if she didn't meet King, went through with her resignation, and went on to Broadway, that Roddenberry wouldn't have cast another African-American woman in the position, or even simply recast the character of Uhura with another actor?

It was a nice moment, though. However, I doubt history would've changed a lot if Nichols had decided to go on to Broadway.

We're not talking about Nichols. We're talking Star Trek. Whether it was Nichols or some other black woman in that seat is irrelevant. The point is that character was important to society at the time.

Quite true. TNG didn't rock the boat or tackle topics in any meaningful way, other than superficially (looking at you "Symbiosis" and "The Outcast"). As David Gerrold said of TNG and its spinoffs, "Star Trek had become the McDonald's of science fiction."

The Drumhead?
Measure of a Man?
Chain of Command?
Tapestry?

There's plenty of episodes that tackled topics in a meaningful way. You can't simply name the bad episodes of TNG to discredit the show.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

I've long heard some fans giving the argument that gays were wiped out in Trek's future.

I didn't knew that the NSDAP came back & ruled the United Earth/Federation at some point. I mean this theory is just stupid & sick!

Only a few days ago somewhere on the forum it was suggested that the gays were kept segregated in different ships in Starfleet.

http://www.celluloid-dreams.de/cont...aumschiff-surprise/traumschiff-surprise-1.jpg

[Converted to link. Pics posted as embedded images should be hosted on your own web space. - M']

 

[BillJ]

The Drumhead?
Measure of a Man?
Chain of Command?
Tapestry?

There's plenty of episodes that tackled topics in a meaningful way. You can't simply name the bad episodes of TNG to discredit the show.

But what there actually is a divisive issue? Where they took a stand that could be seen as unpopular but needed to be said anyway? I guess AI rights is forward thinking to a degree.

 

[borgboy]

I read an interview with JJ after his first movie was made where he talked about the history of the gay erasure in Trek and how that something he wanted to correct in STID. He didn't follow thru, so I'm sceptical that he'd have managed it in his next movie either. I am generally a fan of his work - I'm a fan of Alias and Lost too. He tends to do really well with diversity in race, ethnicity but even with the time available to him in television gay characters got very small cameo appearances at best. I'm pretty unforgiving of that when he had such a very large cast on Lost he only managed to have a minor supporting villain be revealed as gay in his last apperance.
I'm completely unfamiliar with Lin's work - sitcoms and racing movies aren't my thing. So while I'm not overly optimistic of Lin's possibilities with Trek, I don't know that I feel he'll do any worse with gay content than JJ. JJ gave promising hope in interviews and no follow thru. Short of actually making the movie homophobic, I don't see where Lin could do any worse on gay content that JJ did.

To be fair, I think what one wants to do and what the studio allows to be done are two distinct things. So I'm not sure where the actual fault lays.

That's possible. JJ had a Muslim torturer who was one of the main heroes of the series, so I can't imagine if the networks let him do that they'd have stopped him from having a lead gay character.

I suppose it's possible that JJ tried his best to have a gay character in STID and the studio vetoes it, but my gut says that he just didn't try to get it done.

I am a fan, but I've been upset about this issue for a long time now, so I'm not feeling really positive about it. Sci fi in general has a really poor record with gay male characters. They do slightly better with gay women.

 

[BillJ]

I am a fan, but I've been upset about this issue for a long time now, so I'm not feeling really positive about it. Sci fi in general has a really poor record with gay male characters. They do slightly better with gay women.

I can imagine being upset. I just tend to want proof before assigning blame.

 

[borgboy]

I've long heard some fans giving the argument that gays were wiped out in Trek's future.

I didn't knew that the NSDAP came back & ruled the United Earth/Federation at some point. I mean this theory is just stupid & sick!

Only a few days ago somewhere on the forum it was suggested that the gays were kept segregated in different ships in Starfleet.

http://www.celluloid-dreams.de/cont...aumschiff-surprise/traumschiff-surprise-1.jpg

[Embedded image converted to link. - M']

It is sick, but I've heard that theory a lot over the years. A lot of bigots embrace that as it suits their world view, and filmed Trek has done little to nothing to prove them wrong.
Hologram rights was interesting on Voyager and it can be seen as a metaphor for gay rights - I think I recall Picardo making the comparison. And I do enjoy and appreciate the metaphor stories, but just as having a diverse racial cast in TOS made a strong point that left a lasting impression on society and culture, so too could a gay supporting Trek character. Although at this point Trek is so far behind the times on this issue, they've really lost their chance to be socially releavent on this issue. At this point, no matter how important this issue is to me and many other fans, to the mainstram culture unless Trek really does something brilliant and important with a gay character, they've all but lost their chance to be seen as groundbreaking on this issue.
I conceed that I can't prove where the blame falls, but I know that JJ has discussed wanting to do a gay character in STID and nothing came of it. He was the producer and director, so I think it's fair to place responsibility for the content on JJ. If he ever wants to make a public statement that proves differently I'll be glad to be proven wrong.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Then again, not to sound cynical, but who's to say that if she didn't meet King, went through with her resignation, and went on to Broadway, that Roddenberry wouldn't have cast another African-American woman in the position, or even simply recast the character of Uhura with another actor?

It was a nice moment, though. However, I doubt history would've changed a lot if Nichols had decided to go on to Broadway.

We're not talking about Nichols. We're talking Star Trek. Whether it was Nichols or some other black woman in that seat is irrelevant. The point is that character was important to society at the time.

There were several shows with black characters more front and center than Star Trek. Those may have had a greater impact for society at large than Uhura.

 

[Harvey]

As often as that story has changed over the years, I'm not sure how much weight I'd give it. YMMV.

The recently published book Return to Tomorrow has an interview with Nichelle Nichols from 1979 in it. In it, she talks about wanting to leave the series during the third season, but being talked out of doing so by Roddenberry (not MLK, who isn't mentioned). This isn't the full passage, but you get the idea:

There are eight stars on that show, and they still have not realized that they are losing a tremendous bet, they're wasting tremendous talent. They went out and got the best actors and the most beautiful people in the world to be that cast, and then they wasted us... This was always a problem, and I almost quit the TV show at one point over it. It was in the third year and I couldn't stand it any longer.

 

[Sindatur]

Admittedly, the theory of Segregated Gay Ships to explain the lack of Gay characters is pretty vile, but, IMHO, not as vile as another theory, which is that Homosexuality has been "Cured" by Trek's Era

 

[Amaris]

Oh, you mean the same person who desperately ripped out a component at the last second, and then ran away and dove to the ground because this supposed "weapons expert" very obviously hadn't the slightest idea what she was doing?

Oh, you mean like in Star Trek VI, the ship's weapons and tactical officer who didn't know firing a phaser sets off the ship's alarm?

Yeah, now you're getting it. Every Star Trek movie has characters who are otherwise brilliant, but don't get one or two basic concepts about their field of expertise. It happens because that's how the plot moves.

A romantic arc? Kind of like what we got with Dr. Crusher and Captain Picard? If so, yeah, I'd be up for that!

Yeah that and the single episode romances they always do for straight romances with Troi's boyfriends and Riker's girlfriends. Just have a dude beam down to a planet and fall for some dude on the planet, wrap it up by the end.

I don't know why the outcast from TNG gets such a bad rap though, just because the character is played by a woman - Riker was still into that alien before she identified as a woman I believe. Yeah they could have pushed the boundaries more there but it's not bad.

I get annoyed by "The Outcast" because it's about conforming to peer pressure rather than rising above it; that "she" was fixed", and was now content with that.

Plus, they could have made "her" a male, which I think would have been more interesting.

 

[Makarov]

The Drumhead?
Measure of a Man?
Chain of Command?
Tapestry?

There's plenty of episodes that tackled topics in a meaningful way. You can't simply name the bad episodes of TNG to discredit the show.

But what there actually is a divisive issue? Where they took a stand that could be seen as unpopular but needed to be said anyway? I guess AI rights is forward thinking to a degree.

Chain of Command's message on torture was definitely weighing in on a divisive issue. I would say The Drumhead was forward thinking too.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

Only a few days ago somewhere on the forum it was suggested that the gays were kept segregated in different ships in Starfleet.

http://www.celluloid-dreams.de/cont...aumschiff-surprise/traumschiff-surprise-1.jpg

[Converted to link. Pics posted as embedded images should be hosted on your own web space. - M']

Good one, except that it should be hosted on web space or an image-sharing account belonging to you, rather than hotlinked from someone else's site.

 

[Franklin]

Then again, not to sound cynical, but who's to say that if she didn't meet King, went through with her resignation, and went on to Broadway, that Roddenberry wouldn't have cast another African-American woman in the position, or even simply recast the character of Uhura with another actor?

It was a nice moment, though. However, I doubt history would've changed a lot if Nichols had decided to go on to Broadway.

We're not talking about Nichols. We're talking Star Trek. Whether it was Nichols or some other black woman in that seat is irrelevant. The point is that character was important to society at the time.

Quite true. TNG didn't rock the boat or tackle topics in any meaningful way, other than superficially (looking at you "Symbiosis" and "The Outcast"). As David Gerrold said of TNG and its spinoffs, "Star Trek had become the McDonald's of science fiction."

The Drumhead?
Measure of a Man?
Chain of Command?
Tapestry?

There's plenty of episodes that tackled topics in a meaningful way. You can't simply name the bad episodes of TNG to discredit the show.

Well, meaningful is different than groundbreaking, controversial, topical, or unique.

"The Drumhead" was a comment against witch-hunts. Hardly controversial or cutting edge. "Measure of a Man" is one of my favorites. The topic does deal with an interesting idea about how we should look at individuals and value them, but again, its point is so general (all people matter). "Chain of Command" is a great two parter full of drama, but I'm not sure it was even intended to carry a message. We've seen plenty of TV shows where the hero is taken prisoner and terrible things happen to him. "Tapestry" is another fine episode, but many TV shows have had stories about characters mulling over their life choices and their effect on the world.

My point is witch hunting, the value of a person (in a 1980s TV show), and the meaning of an individual's life are common themes in TV shows. They were done well in those TNG episodes, but they weren't anything that stands out in the greater context of 1980s TV.

Too many shows were tackling serious and topical issues without hiding behind all the general metaphors by then, too.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

...

Only a few days ago somewhere on the forum it was suggested that the gays were kept segregated in different ships in Starfleet.

http://www.celluloid-dreams.de/cont...aumschiff-surprise/traumschiff-surprise-1.jpg

[Converted to link. Pics posted as embedded images should be hosted on your own web space. - M']

Good one, except that it should be hosted on web space or an image-sharing account belonging to you, rather than hotlinked from someone else's site.

Sorry. I try to keep that in mind.

 

[Makarov]

I get annoyed by "The Outcast" because it's about conforming to peer pressure rather than rising above it; that "she" was fixed", and was now content with that.

But the episode takes the side of Riker and the peer pressuring government is portrayed as the closed minded bad guys. It is a strong tragic ending but not one that is meant to side with peer pressure.

 

[borgboy]

It is a good episode that explores the metaphor of the stigma against gays. It's the best take on that subject filmed Trek does. It probably was very difficult to get a real gay character on Trek at that time.
It should've been progressively more possible to have gay characters over the years. It was completely possible by the time Enterprise was on. That the new movies are still failing to have a gay character is inexcusable.
The fan films have been more progressive - Hidden Frontier and Phase II/New Voyager come to mind as good examples.
Are there any other fan films that do well with gay characters I should check out?

 

[Kelthaz]

Well, meaningful is different than groundbreaking, controversial, topical, or unique.

That's true, but I was responding to Ryan who claimed that "TNG didn't rock the boat or tackle topics in any meaningful way, other than superficially". But you're right that these episodes weren't exactly progressive. Meaningful, but not progressive.

My point is witch hunting, the value of a person (in a 1980s TV show), and the meaning of an individual's life are common themes in TV shows. They were done well in those TNG episodes, but they weren't anything that stands out in the greater context of 1980s TV.

Too many shows were tackling serious and topical issues without hiding behind all the general metaphors by then, too.

Can you give an example of a show from that time that did stand out in your opinion? I suppose the problem that I'm having in this debate is that I'm not sure what I'm arguing against. What is your criteria for a socially relevant show and why doesn't Star Trek qualify?

 

[borgboy]

Off the top of my head, there were shows in that era that dealt with HIV. I can't think of many shows that handled homosexuality all that well at that time.
The only examples I can think of are soap operas. Around the same time One Life to Live did a groundbreaking story about homophobia, with a gay teen Billy played by Ryan Phillipe. That came on around the same time I was coming out, so it was really important to me. A year or two later General Hospital had Robin Scorpio and her boyfriend Stone both contract HIV, Stone died and Robin lived, and still does recurr on the show as a woman living long term with HIV who's gone on to live a full life with a career and a child - and a failed marriage and involvement with a supervillian mob but it is a soap.
But that's a completely different genre. I don't know that any sci fi shows at the time were any more progressive than Trek.