If Abrams thinks he knows his audience he is mistaken

[Tomalak]

Trek doesn't have a wide enough cast to go gay unless one of the main characters is bi.

It doesn't have to be a main character though. A guest star, a minor character, a couple of extras holding hands in Ten Forward, even a vague reference to a couple getting married and needing new quarters. But there was nothing. That's all you need in the next movie, it needn't be a big issue.

Well actually, since NuChekov is a whole different person, I suppose he could be gay.

I wish he were.

 

[DevilEyes]

Screwed-up ace pilot with a traumatic childhood spent with an abusive mother and absent father that caused her self-loathing, self-destructive ways; who drinks too much, has a messed-up personal life and keeps hurting and being awful to the people in her life, except for the deep father/daughter relationship with her commander, but who is also very spiritual and religious and has a prophesized special destiny, first conveyed to her by a Cylon with whom she has a weird love/hate relationship.

If that is a cliche, than so is every character ever in Trek, and 99% of other characters on TV and in movies.

The added Starbuck specific backstory doesn't make it any less of a cliche.

Well if that's how you define "cliche" - whether you can fit the character into an over-simplified description that can apply to a number of other fictional characters - than, as I said, 99% of all TV characters are cliches, including pretty much every Trek character ever. Only, Trek fans and writers prefer to call them "archetypes", because it sounds cooler.

Kirk - swashbuckling hero admired by his crew and irresistible to women

Spock - outsider who comments on the human condition / mixed race child with identity problems

McCoy - grumpy doc with a heart of hold

Scotty - everyman

Khan/Nero/Shinzon etc. - maniac bent on revenge

Data - outsider learning to be human & looking for his origins/family

Lore/Shinzon/every Mirror Universe character - Evil Twin

Worf - noble savage from a warrior race

Riker - swashbuckling ladies man

O'Brien - everyman

Guinan - Magical Negro

Odo - outsider looking for his origins/family & learning to be human; geeky loner with an unrequited love for his best friend

Kira - brave warrior with a dark past; also a heroine that a charismatic villain is trying to seduce, a cliche going back to 18th century sentimental novels by the likes of Samuel Richardson, and every fucking Gothic novel ever, to contemporary SF/fantasy (Xena/Ares, Buffy/Spike etc.)

Quark - lovable rogue with a heart of gold

Chakotay - spiritual Indian (see: Magical Negro)

EMH - grumpy doc with a heart of gold; outsider learning to be human

B'Elanna Torres - mixed race child with identity problems

Tom Paris - bad boy with a heart of gold

Seven of Nine - outsider learning to be human

T'Pol - outsider learning to be human

You get the idea.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Screwed-up ace pilot with a traumatic childhood spent with an abusive mother and absent father that caused her self-loathing, self-destructive ways; who drinks too much, has a messed-up personal life and keeps hurting and being awful to the people in her life, except for the deep father/daughter relationship with her commander, but who is also very spiritual and religious and has a prophesized special destiny, first conveyed to her by a Cylon with whom she has a weird love/hate relationship.

If that is a cliche, than so is every character ever in Trek, and 99% of other characters on TV and in movies.

The added Starbuck specific backstory doesn't make it any less of a cliche.

Well if that's how you define "cliche" - whether you can fit the character into an over-simplified description that can apply to a number of other fictional characters - than, as I said, 99% of all TV characters are cliches, including pretty much every Trek character ever. Only, Trek fans and writers prefer to call them "archetypes", because it sounds cooler.

Kirk - swashbuckling hero admired by his crew and irresistible to women

Spock - outsider who comments on the human condition / mixed race child with identity problems

McCoy - grumpy doc with a heart of hold

Scotty - everyman

Khan/Nero/Shinzon etc. - maniac bent on revenge

Data - outsider learning to be human & looking for his origins/family

Lore/Shinzon/every Mirror Universe character - Evil Twin

Worf - noble savage from a warrior race

Riker - swashbuckling ladies man

O'Brien - everyman

Guinan - Magical Negro

Odo - outsider looking for his origins/family & learning to be human; geeky loner with an unrequited love for his best friend

Kira - brave warrior with a dark past; also a heroine that a charismatic villain is trying to seduce, a cliche going back to 18th century sentimental novels by the likes of Samuel Richardson, and every fucking Gothic novel ever, to contemporary SF/fantasy (Xena/Ares, Buffy/Spike etc.)

Quark - lovable rogue with a heart of gold

Chakotay - spiritual Indian (see: Magical Negro)

EMH - grumpy doc with a heart of gold; outsider learning to be human

B'Elanna Torres - mixed race child with identity problems

Tom Paris - bad boy with a heart of gold

Seven of Nine - outsider learning to be human

T'Pol - outsider learning to be human

You get the idea.

There is no denying that most if not all Trek characters are cliches. The Outsider learning to be human is Treks favorite cliche. Cant do a Trek show without one.

Kirk in the the new movie is very much the same cliche as both Starbucks. I just like Pine's take better than Sackoffs or Benedicts.

How do you define cliche?

1 : a trite phrase or expression; also : the idea expressed by it
2 : a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation
3 : something (as a menu item) that has become overly familiar or commonplace

In the case of Starbuck, its 2 and 3.

 

[Pauln6]

Trek doesn't have a wide enough cast to go gay unless one of the main characters is bi.

It doesn't have to be a main character though. A guest star, a minor character, a couple of extras holding hands in Ten Forward, even a vague reference to a couple getting married and needing new quarters. But there was nothing. That's all you need in the next movie, it needn't be a big issue.

Well actually, since NuChekov is a whole different person, I suppose he could be gay.

I wish he were.

Lol! I agree with the Ten Forward etc ideas. They can be the next movie's R2D2, although if I got a vote, it would be for Twiki. Sorry ladz.

You can keep NuChekov - I get that same creepy Wesley Crusher crush vibe from that notion. Even in the 23rd century it's just not right! I'd probably stick with promo shots of Quinto as my man crush of choice. At least he can grow stubble...

 

[Char Aznable]

The thing is, people keep saying they'd be happy with something so simple as two background characters together and that's that. However, I know quite a few (a couple on this board) who wouldn't be satisfied with that and would be complaining that they were just, "brushing off the gay issue." These sorts wouldn't be happy unless Kirk or one other major character was gay/bi. However, if they made Kirk, a man remeniscent of the classic American hero gay, OH WOW, the shit storm that could cause inside and outside the fandom. You can't deny this. No one will be completely satisfied no matter what they do.

Even when they try not to bring it up at all people complain and act as if they are somehow entitled to anything besides an entertaining story.

 

[Tomalak]

You can keep NuChekov - I get that same creepy Wesley Crusher crush vibe from that notion. Even in the 23rd century it's just not right! I'd probably stick with promo shots of Quinto as my man crush of choice. At least he can grow stubble...

Now's probably not the time to admit I in fact had a crush on Wesley back in the day...

The thing is, people keep saying they'd be happy with something so simple as two background characters together and that's that. However, I know quite a few (a couple on this board) who wouldn't be satisfied with that and would be complaining that they were just, "brushing off the gay issue."

Rome wasn't built in a day. I'd take any overt acceptance of the reality of male homosexuality on Star Trek at this point, no matter how minor.

 

[BillJ]

Me....I just don't care.

I've yet to hear one argument that would persuade me that there should be anything more than an attempt to tell a good story. Gender, orientation and the like can go hang.

You could have the 'gayest', most inclusive movie ever...and if the plot sucked, who'd give a flying tribble?

I sure wouldn't.

This.

I don't watch Star Trek for romantic relationships.

 

[Tomalak]

Surely that's the majority of the episodes out then?

 

[Captain Robert April]

The whole point is to tell exciting, compelling, and thoughtful stories, not conduct an extended lecture series on a fictional future culture.

"Very interesting hypothesis, Mr. Spock, but before we go any further, in the interests of being fully inclusive, we'd better check in with the Filipino bull dyke down on Deck 19 and the mixed race gay couple in the rec room and get their opinions..."

 

[Pauln6]

The thing is, people keep saying they'd be happy with something so simple as two background characters together and that's that. However, I know quite a few (a couple on this board) who wouldn't be satisfied with that and would be complaining that they were just, "brushing off the gay issue."

Rome wasn't built in a day. I'd take any overt acceptance of the reality of male homosexuality on Star Trek at this point, no matter how minor.

Yeah I'd agree. I actually thought that Torchwood went OTT. In some scenes a longing look would have been enough but no, they had to underscore the gayness by adding lines such as, 'I'm a lesbian, let's shag' (well ok - no they didn't but something similar with a couple of Victorian lesbians)

I enjoyed the Mr Humphreys style innuendo from series one compared to full on shagging in the office of series two (I mean surely there are health and safety issues there). An embarassed kiss in the closet would have chimed more realism instead of a full on snog in front of a load of WWII pilots.

I thought they got the balance right in Children of Earth and at least there, the relationship was used as a sensible part of the plot without trying to be shocking.

And the American audience is less forgiving than the British. You can't please all of the people all of the time so baby steps would be better.

Oh and yes, the story is about Kirk and Spock and their heterosexual relationships and some shooting and blowing stuff up. Everything else needs to be window dressing.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I think of all the attempts that were made, "Rejoined" is probably the most effective.

For one thing, it very ably substituted one taboo (homosexuality) for another (reconnecting with a relationship from a previous host), enabling the audience to get past the baggage associated with the real-life issue and get to the core of at least one part of the issue, namely the question of just what is it you fall in love with, the body or the soul?

For another, notice how not one person brings up the matter of how those involved are both female. It's not even a question.

Besides, it's always an easier sell when it's two hot chicks making out than a couple of guys.

 

[Tomalak]

I thought they got the balance right in Children of Earth and at least there, the relationship was used as a sensible part of the plot without trying to be shocking.

Yeah, Torchwood is a good example. After two years of getting it wrong (as with the whole show basically), they finally presented a believable relationship which was well handled.

Besides, it's always an easier sell when it's two hot chicks making out than a couple of guys.

That's the nub of it though. For what is an otherwise sensitive and thoughtful episode, it only happened because it involved "two hot chicks", and even then there was opposition.

The simple fact is that the episode would never have happened with two male Trill. It would never have even been considered. Two guys kissing doesn't hit the demographic, whereas hot lesbians titillates the important young male audience. It was cynical.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The whole point is to tell exciting, compelling, and thoughtful stories, not conduct an extended lecture series on a fictional future culture.

"Very interesting hypothesis, Mr. Spock, but before we go any further, in the interests of being fully inclusive, we'd better check in with the Filipino bull dyke down on Deck 19 and the mixed race gay couple in the rec room and get their opinions..."

This!

I have yet to see any Trek that went out of it's way to be "inclusive" in this area that was anything but preachy, polemical, and ultimately poorer as a story for the effort.

The OP needs to chill out and stop viewing the world through a filter of "gender preference/identity"...

 

[Sector 7]

^Well said.

I do not want to see gratuitous sex onscreen. Someone above said that the new movie shows professional people at work and to force a scene like the OP wants would just not fit. In a television series there is more time to develop character background of this type, not so much in a movie.

I am a gay male, but that is only a part of who I am. I am also a professional, parent, son, friend, etc. My every waking moment is not consumed by my sexuality... I also enjoy mowing my lawn, bowling, playing pool, watching television and movies, camping... you get the idea. I do not want to see blatant 'in your face' activism for gayness in my Trek. I would rather see it as part of overall development of a character. The O'Briens on TNG were a good example of domestic life being portrayed on Trek. The same could be done with a gay couple who reside on a ship/base/etc., but two guys or chicks (or heteros) making out at Ops would be inappropriate.

The OP's contention that "If Abrams thinks he knows his audience he is mistaken" has been proven inaccurate by the success of the movie across a broad range of fans.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Besides, it's always an easier sell when it's two hot chicks making out than a couple of guys.

That's the nub of it though. For what is an otherwise sensitive and thoughtful episode, it only happened because it involved "two hot chicks", and even then there was opposition.

The simple fact is that the episode would never have happened with two male Trill. It would never have even been considered. Two guys kissing doesn't hit the demographic, whereas hot lesbians titillates the important young male audience. It was cynical.

And also why "Blood and Fire" had to go the fanfilm route to actually get made.

 

[BillJ]

The simple fact is that the episode would never have happened with two male Trill. It would never have even been considered. Two guys kissing doesn't hit the demographic, whereas hot lesbians titillates the important young male audience. It was cynical.

But that's the rub.

Paramount Pictures is in business to make money not dictate social policy. If you put out something that causes a massive number of viewers to tune out, then you've got a problem.

Sad but unfortunate truth.

 

[Tomalak]

Yes, I agree, which is why you don't have to do it in such an overt way.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

From what I can tell T'Pau is a powerful figure on Vulcan with great influence. Either T'Pring or Spock's family is connected well enough that T'Pau officiated at their wedding. (No where it it implied a man couldn't do the job) So is there some where between the lines that I should be looking?

In fact, a man did do the job at the wedding of T'Pol to the Vulcan guy whose name I forget.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Besides, it's always an easier sell when it's two hot chicks making out than a couple of guys.

That's the nub of it though. For what is an otherwise sensitive and thoughtful episode, it only happened because it involved "two hot chicks", and even then there was opposition.

The simple fact is that the episode would never have happened with two male Trill. It would never have even been considered. Two guys kissing doesn't hit the demographic, whereas hot lesbians titillates the important young male audience. It was cynical.

And also why "Blood and Fire" had to go the fanfilm route to actually get made.

And it fell exactly into the trap I noted, as was pointed out by several reviews I read. The inclusion of the "gay angle" was done in such a way as to wave a big "rainbow" flag in the viewers' faces.

 

[Sci]

Star Trek has been dancing around the issue of featuring LGBT characters for forty years; after such a long span of time, if it doesn't reverse course and start featuring LGBT characters, it can rationally be characterized as denying the very existence of LGBT individuals.

So I'd say that Star Trek, as a program dedicated to the values of diversity and inclusiveness and, frankly, modern American liberalism, has a moral obligation to depict LGBT characters.

I'd also say that Star Trek's first duty is to be entertaining, and that no one likes a minority character who exists simply for the sake of being a minority character; two-dimensional tokenism is not the way to go.