Why was Stamets chosen to be gay?

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Takeru, Nov 12, 2017.

  1. GeekUSACarl

    GeekUSACarl The Last Starfighter Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Lady Gaga approves
     
  2. Sakonna

    Sakonna Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Oh sure, I see how it is, the first Trek gay character ends up a pedophile.

    (I am joking, but also rewatching the first Traveler episode a few months ago all I could think was "fuck this is creepy! Did he always seem this much like a sexual predator?!?" Grooming victim Wesley in every appearance till he tosses his whole life away to run off with the Traveler... creeeeeeeepy ;))

    I'm with you on the basic worry -- every IRL discussion I have about Discovery brings this up. "They do know they can't kill Stamets or Culber, right?" And then we say "I THINK so", but without much confidence. Rather than Stamets dying, my bigger fear is actually that a possessed Stamets will kill Culber, since he's the one with guest star billing.

    But just the way they writers discuss the Stamets/Culber relationship in the press... it feels like they understand what it means. They seem to grasp why this relationship is so important, which means they should also know they would be buried in an avalanche of (deserved) negative press if they end it with tragic death in a single season. So... fingers crossed, I guess!

    But I would just add that I don't think Stamets has to die to explain the lack of future spore drive. There's a million contrivances you could come up with to fridge the spore drive. Especially on this show, which I love, but it's defining weakness is that it has no trouble using a Lazy Storytelling Contrivance whenever they hit a Plot Point That Needs To Happen.

    Also this:
    sounds like it could be a very edgy and fantastically dark comedy that I would love to watch. :bolian:
     
    Psion likes this.
  3. Arvis Taljik

    Arvis Taljik Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    So if LGBTQ people make up approximately 10% of the overall human population, would it then not also carry that they would represent 10% of deaths?

    The math is equal here so I don't see what the issues is... :shrug:
    (I'm saying this as a gay man, so you can't say I'm biased toward non-LGBTQ people on this one lol)
     
    Satron and Feron like this.
  4. Takeru

    Takeru Space Police Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Location:
    Germany, EU, Earth
    They don't make up 10% of characters on tv though, it's way less, so they are killed disproportionally often.
     
    Awesome Possum and borgboy like this.
  5. ItIsGreen

    ItIsGreen Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2015
    Location:
    Coventry, UK
    My only answer to the question in the topic, is "why not?".

    The series was developed by a gay man, they said from the outset there was going to be a gay main character, why not Stamets?

    That doesn't make sense. Anthony Rapp is an actor, their whole job is to convincingly play another person. Gay people play straight characters and vice versa all the time. I haven't seen him in anything else, but I'm sure he could play a straight person with no problems whatsoever.
     
  6. borgboy

    borgboy Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Rapp's most well known role prior to Discovery was playing a straight man in Rent (whose cast included a gay character played by Cruz).
     
    ItIsGreen likes this.
  7. Dilvish

    Dilvish Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    I think it could be daring and dramatic if they did kill him off, and it was a real self-sacrifice. I mean like Spock. (But please ignore that Spock was resurrected later... which kind of cheapened his death.)
     
  8. Awesome Possum

    Awesome Possum Keeping TNZ Shiny! Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2001
    Location:
    The Future!
    Not really. Killing the gay character is a pretty cliched trope at this point.
     
    mickmike likes this.
  9. Dilvish

    Dilvish Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    He's a likable main character who has already risked all. Not sure how many of those there have been to form a "trope".
     
    Feron likes this.
  10. Awesome Possum

    Awesome Possum Keeping TNZ Shiny! Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2001
    Location:
    The Future!
    A lot.
     
  11. indranee

    indranee Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Stamets won't die. But he may kill Culber in a fit of rage (a la Mitchell). After all, it's Cruz who's the recurring character (besides the fact that he seems a definite redshirt to me).

    Either way, I'm looking forward to the ensuing drama.
     
    Satron likes this.
  12. Arvis Taljik

    Arvis Taljik Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    You're making it sound like Discovery carries the singular responsibility of fixing a Hollywood-wide "issue" as you've described it.

    I've looked at all the cast photos in which Rudd and/or Cruz are present, and in all of them the numbers work out in favor of a greater than 10% representation ratio. Mind you, this is for MAIN CAST ONLY. Since secondary characters rarely have enough of a backstory given for them to be identified as anything other than human or alien, I'm not counting them.

    The below picture, as an example, has a representation percentage of 14.2%.
    [​IMG]

    Now if we add in the remainder of the "main cast" (plus lets take into account that Yeoh is present in a lot of cast photos and she's a guest star...), we have a representation ratio that's still above 10% for Discovery.

    Discovery is actually breaking the 10% representation and population percentage and I think they should be given a pat on the back for that. Now if the complaint still comes up about Stamets possibly dying or leaving the ship's crew, then all I have to say is that it's pretty much equal opportunity for any of the cast members to depart with the exception of Burnham and possibly Lorca.

    Equality means being equal for all, not more equal for some and less for others. :)
     
    Feron likes this.