What Do You Want To See? Star Trek Beyond

[T'Girl]

Every time a "what do you want to see in Trek" topic comes up, it turns into this.

It isn't the only point that has been brought up, but it is a ongoing flaw with Star Trek that needs to be addressed.

... where is the dividing line?

Having it be "implied" definitely would fall short of the mark.

In my everyday travels through life ...

Your everyday life isn't a movie. A movie is a presentation, things are deliberately on display for the audience to see and hear. While a sign wouldn't have to be hung around someone's neck, yes there would have to be a clear "sign."

All that other stuff is boring.

YMMV.

 

[martok2112]

In my everyday travels through life ...

Your everyday life isn't a movie. A movie is a presentation, things are deliberately on display for the audience to see and hear. While a sign wouldn't have to be hung around someone's neck, yes there would have to be a clear "sign."

With all due respect, and all sensitivity, T'girl:
The dividing line for the movie will skew greatly depending on your POV.

For those whom a "gay character" issue is not a big deal, having the character's background kept subtle as in real life will be plenty enough for us to understand that, yes, the character is indeed gay. Yet, for those seeking to have gays fully represented in Trek, it is not enough.

It then becomes a political statement if they get the level of representation you want to be shown, although for those such as yourself who desire that level of representation, it will be just a simple a "matter of fact" thing.

This is why I offered that, at some point in the movie, the character is seen in a social setting sitting hand in hand, or perhaps with one having their arm around the other...whether in the background, or even in the foreground as part of the dialogue portion of the scene. As long as it is not played off as "woo hoo, lookie at us! We're gay and lovin' it!" or some officer saying: "Wow! I never saw that coming!" This is just played off as a "matter of fact" situation that both those calling for subtlety and the ones demanding advocacy can both easily see: "Ok, now there's a gay character in Star Trek!"

 

[TRON JA307020]

In my everyday travels through life

With all due respect, and all sensitivity, T'girl:
The dividing line for the movie will skew greatly depending on your POV.
...

Your everyday life isn't a movie. A movie is a presentation, things are deliberately on display for the audience to see and hear. While a sign wouldn't have to be hung around someone's neck, yes there would have to be a clear "sign."



For those whom a "gay character" issue is not a big deal, having the character's background kept subtle as in real life will be plenty enough for us to understand that, yes, the character is indeed gay. Yet, for those seeking to have gays fully represented in Trek, it is not enough.

It then becomes a political statement if they get the level of representation you want to be shown, although for those who desire that level of representation, it will be just a simple a "matter of fact" thing.

This is why I offered that, at some point in the movie, the character is seen in a social setting sitting hand in hand, or perhaps with one having their arm around the other...whether in the background, or even in the foreground as part of the dialogue portion of the scene. As long as it is not played off as "woo hoo, lookie at us! We're gay and lovin' it!" or some officer saying: "Wow! I never saw that coming!" This is just played off as a "matter of fact" situation that both those calling for subtlety and the ones demanding advocacy can both easily see: "Ok, now there's a gay character in Star Trek!"

Agreed. I mean do we really want a gay character that decides to sit down with a heterosexual character and discuss that they are gay. Would it really be necessary in the 23rd or 24th century? Doubtful. If a gay character wants to have a mate or whatever fine but why hit us over the head with it and have the character constantly acknowledge it or have stories revolving around it. The point of Star Trek is that in the future things like that wont matter.

 

[martok2112]

In the Social setting (ship's lounge, let's say), if the gay character(s) are more in the background, you might have one or two of the dialogue characters mention some kind of special event that the gay character, or both he/she and his partner are planning on celebrating. ... just keep the dialogue innocuous and "matter of fact".... keep it subtle. .. mention it in passing. Same thing of the gay characters are part of the foreground dialogue. ... have them mention the special event as if it's definitely v special, but you don't have to hit the crowd over the head with it. Keep it as if it's no different from. ... say. ... a real life couple announcing that they're about to take a vacation or cruise among their friends. Sure, it's great, but you're not gonna be jumping up and down the lounge about it.

 

[eyeresist]

Sex should not be emphasised in the Star Trek universe - that's not what it's about...

The whole point of "The Cage" was that the Talosians wanted Pike and Vina (or Number One or Yeoman Colt) to mate to rebuild their civilizations.

Star Trek has always had a huge sexual element. David Marcus wasn't delivered via stork.

Obviously reproduction takes place in the Trek universe! That was not my point.

 

[Trekkin]

I've been re watching TNG recently. On occasion, it so fucking was.

Take today's episode for example - Poor Picard, he can't take one trip to Risa without every woman in the vicinity trying to get some French snoo-snoo. I blame his speedo.

 

[fireproof78]

Here's my thing, and again this is not trying to step on toes.

First of all, having backgrounds on even basic characters and extras adds a lot to them, even if they are fated to die. My favorite episode is "Balance of Terror" where we start off with the meeting of two no names (for purposes of the show-they are not main cast or recurring parts) who get married. And one dies.

So, imagine having a scene in the Enterprise cafeteria/lounge/mess hall. Some characters are talking, and one excuses themselves to go sit with someone else. Then, there is a marriage proposal and the excited yelling. There is no "as you know" scene where gay marriage is explained in all its historical details of Federation on and on. Nope, its background texture that shows it, and moves on.

And, then, someone dies.

Dr. Who did a decent job with this too, and had an idea for an alternate universe Micky (Noel Clarke's character), and a male character comments (after he's gone on a dangerous mission) "He was the best boyfriend I ever had" or something like that.

Again, no lengthy exposition. Just, statement of fact.

I think it could work.

 

[Trekkin]

Doctor Who is one of those series which at once handles gay characters very well at times, but really goddamn badly at others.

For eg. There was Mark Shephards character, which was well handled. On the other hand, there's the way gay characters were handled for most of the first two seasons of Torchwood.

Except for the actual episode 'Captain Jack Harkness'. That one was pretty neat.

 

[eyeresist]

Dr. Who did a decent job with this too, and had an idea for an alternate universe Micky (Noel Clarke's character), and a male character comments (after he's gone on a dangerous mission) "He was the best boyfriend I ever had" or something like that.

As was pointed out in the TV series Outland, alternate universe Mickey dying and Mickey Prime (who is straight) stepping into his place was a truly horrible outcome for the bereaved boyfriend.

Here is the quote:

The scariest thing I ever saw on Doctor Who wasn’t when I was a kid. It was a David Tennant story. The Cybermen one. On a parallel Earth. And there was another Mickey. Called Ricky. And he was a freedom fighter. And when he died Mickey decided to stay in parallel Earth and fight the Cybermen. But Ricky was obviously gay. And he had this boyfriend. So at the end of the story, Mickey and the boyfriend decide to go and liberate Paris. And I thought, hang on. Here you are, off to the most romantic city in the world, with a man that looks exactly like your boyfriend, except he doesn’t love you anymore. And he never did. Your lover is dead. But you have this reminder with you every day. A man who will never love you. Because he loves Rose. You can’t grieve properly because he’s still there. It’s like your relationship, your pain, is beneath contempt. You’re totally alone. And that was supposed to be a happy ending.

And that was the scariest thing I ever saw on Doctor Who.

Andy, Outland Ep. 4

("I don’t remember that." "It was a bonus thing on the DVD.")

 

[F. King Daniel]

Forgot one: Lasting change. ST'09 was all lasting change, but while ID smashed half of San Francisco, killed Pike and demolished Starfleet's hierarchy, it felt like we were reset to the end of ST'09 at the finale. Maybe it's just the identical check-in end scene that needs to go in part 3.

 

[Malaika]

Continuations of the character arcs we've seen.

I wouldn't mind seeing a end to the Spock and Uhura relationship and just have them be friends without benefits. No more Uhura the high maintenance girlfriend.

and if they do it needs to be as understated as possible

Problem is if they're too subtle then the character isn't gay. The movie is a presentation, you have to clearly indicate to the audience that they are in fact gay.

How? The same way it was clearly establish that McCoy was formerly married to a "she," through dialog. Or visually, like how Kirk is repeatedly seen to be checking out women.

Every time a "what do you want to see in Trek" topic comes up, it turns into this.

It isn't the only point that has been brought up, but it is a ongoing flaw with Star Trek that needs to be addressed.

... where is the dividing line?

Having it be "implied" definitely would fall short of the mark.

In my everyday travels through life ...

Your everyday life isn't a movie. A movie is a presentation, things are deliberately on display for the audience to see and hear. While a sign wouldn't have to be hung around someone's neck, yes there would have to be a clear "sign."

All that other stuff is boring.

YMMV.

I find ironic that in all this talk about how trek has this flaw that it lacks representation for some minorities, you want the one existing, subtle, understated interracial couple to end because that is not needed, but on the flip side you are complaining that if a gay character/relationship is understated and 'subtle' it isn't enough because it should be more in your face to count?
Basically, they all should be just friends and do their job only and their private 'romantic' life doesn't matter unless it's platonic friendship 'without benefits' ... except, you want one of them to be gay and have a fully developed in your face arc about their private life.
I guess the cake ain't enough and you want to eat it too...

ps: if a girl who is dating a vulcan is a 'high maintenance girlfriend' (I wonder by your standards what his male friend, who spends 99,9% of both movies arguing with him and demanding him to be human, is) then most of us in the real world are truly hopeless and should be single forever because God forbid you have misunderstandings with your partner and don't worship the ground they walk on.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Zoe Saldana doing the fan dance from ST 5.

Straight-up, flat-out, NO. The media and most women would have a field day worse than what happened in Into Darkness with the Carol Marcus scene.

As for what I want from the next movie:

*An original script/story from the new writers, or an adaptation of an existing Star Trek novel or even a comic book story (like the current Star Trek comic book story 'Eurydice')-if Marvel can adapt a comic book story into a movie, then so can Star Trek.

* An expanded role for John Cho and Karl Urban in the movie.

That's all I can think of, more next time.

 

[Trekkin]

Could Paramount adapt a non-IDW era story? I was under the impression that rights were a mess there. Marvel might still have the rights to their original stories and characters, and permissions would all have to go through CBS.

Seems like the potential for a lot of unnecessary fuss. I admit that's just a theory though, it's entirely possible that there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Could Paramount adapt a non-IDW era story? I was under the impression that rights were a mess there. Marvel might still have the rights to their original stories and characters, and permissions would all have to go through CBS.

Seems like the potential for a lot of unnecessary fuss. I admit that's just a theory though, it's entirely possible that there wouldn't be a problem.

Yep. If it's an official Trek product, CBS owns it and it can be adapted. Into Darkness was clearly influenced by the 80's novel Dreadnought! , which also featured a warmongering Admiral inciting Klingons, and a top-secret Dreadnought starship.

 

[Cyke101]

Doctor Who is one of those series which at once handles gay characters very well at times, but really goddamn badly at others.

For eg. There was Mark Shephards character, which was well handled. On the other hand, there's the way gay characters were handled for most of the first two seasons of Torchwood.

Except for the actual episode 'Captain Jack Harkness'. That one was pretty neat.

I've long subscribed to this comment (author unknown):

"Doctor Who is a show for children written by adults. Torchwood is a show for adults written by children."

Which, I think, is pretty accurate, speaking as a Doctor Who fan. Miracle Day was pretty terrible -- I looked forward to John deLancie joining the show, but then they reduced him to the British idea of an American authority figure, one who spouted curse words more than definite articles for no real reason. Because, y'know, adults.

 

[fireproof78]

Dr. Who did a decent job with this too, and had an idea for an alternate universe Micky (Noel Clarke's character), and a male character comments (after he's gone on a dangerous mission) "He was the best boyfriend I ever had" or something like that.

As was pointed out in the TV series Outland, alternate universe Mickey dying and Mickey Prime (who is straight) stepping into his place was a truly horrible outcome for the bereaved boyfriend.

Here is the quote:

The scariest thing I ever saw on Doctor Who wasn’t when I was a kid. It was a David Tennant story. The Cybermen one. On a parallel Earth. And there was another Mickey. Called Ricky. And he was a freedom fighter. And when he died Mickey decided to stay in parallel Earth and fight the Cybermen. But Ricky was obviously gay. And he had this boyfriend. So at the end of the story, Mickey and the boyfriend decide to go and liberate Paris. And I thought, hang on. Here you are, off to the most romantic city in the world, with a man that looks exactly like your boyfriend, except he doesn’t love you anymore. And he never did. Your lover is dead. But you have this reminder with you every day. A man who will never love you. Because he loves Rose. You can’t grieve properly because he’s still there. It’s like your relationship, your pain, is beneath contempt. You’re totally alone. And that was supposed to be a happy ending.

And that was the scariest thing I ever saw on Doctor Who.

Andy, Outland Ep. 4

("I don’t remember that." "It was a bonus thing on the DVD.")

That wasn't really my point, though I appreciate the information.

 

[M'Sharak]

Zoe Saldana doing the fan dance from ST 5.

Straight-up, flat-out, NO. The media and most women would have a field day worse than what happened in Into Darkness with the Carol Marcus scene.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Could Paramount adapt a non-IDW era story? I was under the impression that rights were a mess there. Marvel might still have the rights to their original stories and characters, and permissions would all have to go through CBS.

Seems like the potential for a lot of unnecessary fuss. I admit that's just a theory though, it's entirely possible that there wouldn't be a problem.

I doubt Marvel owns the rights to anything they produced while they held the license. CBS probably owns the rights to every Star Trek comic Gold Key, Marvel, DC, Dark Horse and IDW produced. Including original characters.

 

[martok2112]

Marvel could have their own comics turned into movies because they owned the rights to those characters, stories, etc. (Especially now that Marvel is its own movie making entity...albeit, under a very hands-off Disney) When Marvel had the license to do Star Trek/Star Wars, that was just it....it was a license...nothiing more. They could create their own stories,introduce new characters and ships and places, but those stories were not considered an official part of the Star Trek/Star Wars universe.

Even the Marvel Adaptations of the Star Wars original trilogy took a few minor liberties (non-canonical) with their comics. After that, when Marvel was allowed to create stories beyond the movies, they were just that...comic book stories that they have no right to beyond the license to simply write them and draw them.

 

[eyeresist]

That wasn't really my point, though I appreciate the information.

I will do whatever it takes to promote Outland!
Though it also relates to the gay visibility issue, showing that the issue can remain problematic even with a well-known gay showrunner.