well, modern trek at least. it could have followed in TOS's footsteps and embraced controversy... which would have likely meant cancellation after three seasons... bah.
TREK future anti-gay?
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
- Status
You are correct it would have been dropped like a hot potato. And we all would be sitting around wondering what color Billy Mummy's boots will be in Lost In Space XI.
number6
Vice Admiral
...or the colour of his sombrero.
at the risk of kicking this dead horse one more time, I have to say as a gay male I am quite pleased with the way Star Trek has handled this subject, at least for now...I do not want to see a token gay character partially because I think it would turn people off from the series/movies and partially because I think somethings are better left vague so that we can all feel comfortable watching and imagine that we fit in somewhere in this future...let's be honest, that's why a lot of us still watch this show 40 years later
Star Trek's long-standing message of tolerance speaks for itself. Yes, as a gay male I'd love to see two males in a relationship (re-la-tion-ship, not sexual encounter), but I agree that it may cause premature cancellation.
Perhaps "don't ask, don't tell" eventually became a StarFleet regulation?
I agree with the posters who said it shouldn't be a big deal in the future. I do still think some form of term, if not label, will be needed even in a politically correct future. Personally, I like Ahnold's Total Recall conversation. The doc asks him his sexual preference and he said, "Hetero." I like that term better than straight... as if gay means crooked.
(I may be rambling as it is almost 3 am here... so I'll shut up now.)
Perhaps "don't ask, don't tell" eventually became a StarFleet regulation?
I agree with the posters who said it shouldn't be a big deal in the future. I do still think some form of term, if not label, will be needed even in a politically correct future. Personally, I like Ahnold's Total Recall conversation. The doc asks him his sexual preference and he said, "Hetero." I like that term better than straight... as if gay means crooked.
(I may be rambling as it is almost 3 am here... so I'll shut up now.)
it may have meant better shows, though.
if the writers had ignored the commands from the network, they could have really gone to all the way with stories, not just on gay issues, but on any controversial topic.
again, I'll point to DS9, which chose to break with the ratings demands and instead tell the story they wanted to tell. but DS9 was also very lucky with the timing, starting at TNG's popularity peak and being able to maintain itself simply as a star trek series, not on it's own ratings.
Firefly and Space: Above and Beyond are two shows that tried to tell the story first, worry about ratings and network demands second... but they didn't have a connection to an established franchise like DS9 did.
it's an interesting thought, would TNG have succeeded if the writers had chosen to tell controversial stories early on? I personally think so, as it was part of an established franchise that had a fanbase strong enough to drag it out of 15 years of cancellation... and it's not like first season TNG was all that good in any way, yet the strength of the fanbase kept it from cancellation where any other show would have been done within the first month.
I'm gay and I've ben a huge fan of Trek for most of my life, and I have to say I've never been offended by the 'lack' of gay characters. The fact that homosexuality is never brought up as a negative issue shows that humanity's emotional growth has made it a non-issue in Trek's future.
There have been a few episodes where characters have been faced with potential homosexual relationships, and each time this happened, it was never the gender of the partner that was a potential deal-breaker. Jadzia's relationship with her former wife was a problem more because of the Trill taboo of reassociation. Riker and Trip both had relationships with genders that weren't male or female, again suggesting the lack of importance gender has in the future.
I'm not sure that we ever needed to see Archer and Trip kissing on the bridge (as hot as that would have been!), or to have a same-sex couple holding hands in the background. It would have just seemed forced and arbitrary, or perhaps even just a ratings stunt.
Will and Grace, a comedy with two gay men in the lead cast perhaps did more harm to the gay community than Star Trek. The women were always in relationships whereas Will, for years, was portrayed as a loser, and Jack was always a bit of a slag - both negative representations. Throw in the sterotypical gay 'jokes' and bam, there's your sitcom. I used to really love this show when I was younger but I find that I really have to turn down my expectations upon rewatchings.
There have been a few episodes where characters have been faced with potential homosexual relationships, and each time this happened, it was never the gender of the partner that was a potential deal-breaker. Jadzia's relationship with her former wife was a problem more because of the Trill taboo of reassociation. Riker and Trip both had relationships with genders that weren't male or female, again suggesting the lack of importance gender has in the future.
I'm not sure that we ever needed to see Archer and Trip kissing on the bridge (as hot as that would have been!), or to have a same-sex couple holding hands in the background. It would have just seemed forced and arbitrary, or perhaps even just a ratings stunt.
Will and Grace, a comedy with two gay men in the lead cast perhaps did more harm to the gay community than Star Trek. The women were always in relationships whereas Will, for years, was portrayed as a loser, and Jack was always a bit of a slag - both negative representations. Throw in the sterotypical gay 'jokes' and bam, there's your sitcom. I used to really love this show when I was younger but I find that I really have to turn down my expectations upon rewatchings.
The only sci-fi show i can think of thats openly pro-gay is doctor who, and thats only because its headed by RTD, as other posters have said just because they didn't have an openly gay character doesn't mean there went any gays, there are several characters that we never saw in relationships perhaps they are gay but it is a hidden message due to the taboo nature of homosexuality during treks peak times (60s,70s,80s) by the time the 90s came we had openly bisexual characters although as pointed out they were always women, but thats probably just to appeal to the target audience.
I don't think treks anti anything its message is one of tolerance.
I don't think treks anti anything its message is one of tolerance.
For some reason something that stands out in my mind that really sums it up was Jadzia's reaction to Pel (when she though Pel was a male Ferengi), simply stating "You really love him, don't you?" There was no subtext, weirdness or whatever. Now finding out that Pel was a female Ferengi -- that was a shock, but the idea that Pel was a male Ferengi who was in love with another male Ferengi, just something to chat about.
And these were frickin' aliens!
And these were frickin' aliens!
RobertScorpio
Pariah
From what I have seen, and I can't speak to Voyager and Enterprise, there has only been one episode that was supposed to be about being open about one's sexuality. And that was the episode where Riker went to that world where there was jsut one sex. But the message I took from that episode was far from being a 'pro' open society. If I am correct, that person was in trouble for being open about their sexuality. Sure, it was meant to mirror our society and give us a message, okay I get that.
And, as I said at the start, you can't 'read' into what isn't on the screen. It is one thing to say "by that time, our society would have evolved" ect..ect ect.. But if we are to use canon, then here is what I saw;
No openly Gay male characters in either series.
Women did not command starships until the late 23rd century (Voyage Home)
Women can kiss romatically. Provided it is in their rooms. Openly? You'd have to go to the mirror universe.
The more I think about it the more I think that Berman, Moore, Behr, Braga and all of the other modern trek folks were giving lip service to the gay community. By the time ENTERPRISE left the air there were many shows, WILL AND GRACE as you mentioned, that openly had gay characters on them. And yet Star Trek, the so called progessive show, never really went into the subject. And the reason given? "By that time, TREK's time, a person's sexual preference is no longer an issue". And yet I would say that 99.9% of the relationships on that show were heterosexual.
Now, for me? I agree with the other poster that I wouldn't want an openly gay couple (men) covorting on screen. HOWEVER. If they had done one episode, or showed something in passing in the background occaisonally, like I see here in San Diego, two men or women holding hands, then yeah..okay..I would have been okay with that. Trek didn't even do that. Why? Because it isn't important and TREK is a pro gay show? Doesn't add up.
They were a franchise worried about their image. So on one hand they will say things like "oh, Roddenberry's future is progressive on this matter so there is no need to show it" And then, never really show it. Its called covering your ass and Berman and company dodged and weaved on this issue. My friend has a point. I guess it depends on one's own experiences in life. I could only defend Star Trek by pointing out the issues of race and sexism that the show delt with at times. But as for gay issues? Star Trek fell woefully short, he believes..and I now agree.
Rob
Scorpio
And, as I said at the start, you can't 'read' into what isn't on the screen. It is one thing to say "by that time, our society would have evolved" ect..ect ect.. But if we are to use canon, then here is what I saw;
No openly Gay male characters in either series.
Women did not command starships until the late 23rd century (Voyage Home)
Women can kiss romatically. Provided it is in their rooms. Openly? You'd have to go to the mirror universe.
The more I think about it the more I think that Berman, Moore, Behr, Braga and all of the other modern trek folks were giving lip service to the gay community. By the time ENTERPRISE left the air there were many shows, WILL AND GRACE as you mentioned, that openly had gay characters on them. And yet Star Trek, the so called progessive show, never really went into the subject. And the reason given? "By that time, TREK's time, a person's sexual preference is no longer an issue". And yet I would say that 99.9% of the relationships on that show were heterosexual.
Now, for me? I agree with the other poster that I wouldn't want an openly gay couple (men) covorting on screen. HOWEVER. If they had done one episode, or showed something in passing in the background occaisonally, like I see here in San Diego, two men or women holding hands, then yeah..okay..I would have been okay with that. Trek didn't even do that. Why? Because it isn't important and TREK is a pro gay show? Doesn't add up.
They were a franchise worried about their image. So on one hand they will say things like "oh, Roddenberry's future is progressive on this matter so there is no need to show it" And then, never really show it. Its called covering your ass and Berman and company dodged and weaved on this issue. My friend has a point. I guess it depends on one's own experiences in life. I could only defend Star Trek by pointing out the issues of race and sexism that the show delt with at times. But as for gay issues? Star Trek fell woefully short, he believes..and I now agree.
Rob
Scorpio
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Umm..yeah, I think he is a little overboard on this topic, and others.
But just taking it strictly "the only thing that is canon is what is in the shows or in the movies' mantra, then I think he has a point. Especially from a show that is as supposedly 'progressive' as Star Trek claims to be. Over 600+ hours of a progressive show and really hardly any real 'hard' evidence to show that one's sexual preference is not longer an issue in their time?
In my 'producer' frame of mine? I would not have shown men kissing on Star Trek. Women kissing? Sure, mainly because the demographic of men to women watching TREk skews totally towards men, and even more importantly, young men. If they had shown two men kissing not only would it have gotten a ton of media coverage, it may have caused their biggest demographic, heteromen, to tune off.
So..while he may be sensitive, I think, looking back at what was said and what was done? I think he has a point.
Rob
number6
Vice Admiral
No. I equate this with the feminist who gets pissed off because a man holds a door open for her, not because of chivalry, but because it's polite.
There is a difference between finding discrimination and looking for it.
Agreed, Tell your friend to grow the heck up. This is the 21st century,
RobertScorpio
Pariah
If the woman got pissed off all the time when men opened the door, then yes...but if she only got pissed off only one time a man did it,then that would be more comparable here...
The only episode that I can think of,as I said earlier, that even came close to dealing with the issue of sexual preference was the one with Riker on that world where everyone was the same sex. I was at a convention near about that time when this episode was being discussed as coming out soon. And that Star Trek TNG would make a bold statement.
I havent' seen the episode for years so I will have to go back and see it. But what I got from it was that when that person showed interest in Riker she was shunned by her people, and threatened with punnishment. The message was to mirror our society about how gays are forced to keep the way they live their lives in the closet or risk being shunned...good message, and true.
But my friend argues this. So they go to a world in the federation that forces people to keep their lives in the closet. And yet, in the other 600+ hours of episodes, they never went to a world where you saw men with men, even if only in the background. There are black people. There are asians. There are white people, women, native americans in the background of several trek episodes..heck, even dwarfs. But no same sex partners even in passing.
Enterprise was supposed to have had a gay character, or so I have read. It was to be the security officer. Nope..never happened, as best as I can recall. Maybe they did show him with another man, I don't know, I didn't watch the show, and either did he. So maybe they did cross the barrier. If so, then I will have to tell him they did. But from what I can tell I don't think they ever showed Reed with another man.
But..we still got great views of T'pol's naked body. Aimed directly at the demographic. I think Berman and company may have wanted to do a gay themed episode, but were nixed by Paramount. If so, then this is where we missed Roddenberry. I am not a big fan of the guy, but he would have said "FUCK YOU" and have made an episode called Brokeback Neutral Zone. I'm not sure I would have liked it, but I would have liked the 'thumbing his nose at Paramount' aspect of it.
Rob
Scorpio
number6
Vice Admiral
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that Trek is anti-gay. Absence of proof proves very little. My feminist analogy is pretty apt. I've encountered many people who get offended that their sensibilities aren't catered to to the letter. I remember having a conversation with someone who accused me of being sexist because as a DJ I didn't play any "feminist" music. She took issue because the majority of songs I played were sung by men and not women, and when I explained the songs by women that I did play, she said it didn't matter because those songs were produced and packaged by men. You can't win with people who are so insecure about how they live in their own skin that they need to project those insecurities on everyone else.
GR would have had great views of T'Pol's naked body. He was into showing as much skin as possible. I will go with my original statement and say that your friend needs to grow the fuck up. I will also point out that Gene Roddenberry was very much alive when David Gerrold's Blood and Fire was nixed as a TNG episode, so there goes your whole "Gene would have said Fuck You to Paramount" argument.
Middle America isn't comfortable with two guys playing tonsil ping pong on television, anymore than they are showing masturbation or breast feeding.
Trek never showed that either, so by your argument Trek is against Masturbation and Breast Feeding, too.
Also by your argument, Trek is anti-semetic because we never got to see a Hassidic Helmsman.
Amen!
"Star Trek" is pro-conformity.
- Status
Similar threads
