You may be searching for this.
^ Cogley, you really crack me up!
Geez....you couldn't have missed the point by more if you'd tried.
I was not talking about BSG characters moving to Trek, or BSG-like characters being on Trek (although frankly, I think VOY could and should have been more like BSG...and would have been alot better for it - but that is another topic for another time - and forum).
I was talking about writers, and how well they write relationship-related stuff. Because the topic of this thread is gay relationships in Trek.
Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that Trek writers have a long and colorful history of sucking at writing 'ships. The 'ships on TOS where little more than womanizing conquests, the 'ships on TNG were shallow and underdeveloped, the 'ships on DS9 (with the exception of Sisko/Kassidy) were creepy, the 'ships on VOY were out-of-the blue and undeveloped (and ended up pissing off tons of fans), and the 'ships on ENT were about the same as on VOY.
What I was saying in my post was that there are several shows that were much better at this sort of thing than was Trek. In particular, I think that the Joss Whedon shows (Buffy/Angel/Firefly) are much better at this. And certainly Farscape, Roswell, and B5 fall into that category also - in fact, they do it better than does Joss.
However, it does seem that Ron Moore had some talent in this area, as his work on Roswell...and to a lesser extent, BSG illustrate.
And yes, I think the 'ships on BSG are well written, for the sort of show it is. BSG is a dark and gritty show, with dark, gritty and hard characters who have to be hard to survive. They work hard under incredibly dangerous circumstances, and they play hard to blow off the steam. That is sorta the point of that show - to explore what different sorts of people do under incredible, unrelenting pressure and constant fear. What that show IS is an exploration of the dark underbelly of human nature - including the dark underbelly of how people conduct their relationships (both romantic and otherwise) with each other.
So...are the 'ships on BSG all happy-shiny? No...but they fit the show. A show in which the situation is FUBAR, and the characters fight not to become FUBAR themselves...some with greater success than others.
This has nothing whatever to do with whether a Tigh-like character should be in Trek. Or whether or not Starbuck would fit in in Starfleet.
It has do so with the relative quality of writing (particularly of 'ships) in various shows. And in that regard, as dysfunctional as the relationships are in BSG, they are still better written for the sort of show it is than, say, Chakotay and Seven of Nine, which was perhaps the most horribly written 'ship in the history of the 'verse.
Better for you, not for me.
I'm not interested in seeing fucked up people in love, gay or straight, on board a Federation starship-especially with a bevy of counselors aboard it. The philosophies of Gene Roddenberry worked well enough for us then, and they work well now-just ask James Cawley (Star Trek New Voyages) about that. If they can't handle their shit properly aboard a ship that like it as not faces danger, and sometimes destruction, on a daily basis, then they should leave the service. And most of the real life armed forces have the same attitude towards this as I've expressed above.
What the characters in BSG do works for them because their civilization is gone anyway, the Cylons are breathing down their necks, and they all don't know if they will survive. In a Star Trek show, that kind of situation would work once-then, the crew in question has to get their shit together and hang together, 'or they'll hang separately' as the old saying goes. That doesn't mean the characters can't be written well, but it does mean that they can't be like the fuck-ups on any of the other shows that you want Star Trek to be. Nor can they be like those fuck-ups all the time, because the other millions of Trekkers who like Star Trek the way it is don't want to see that. They want characters that they and their kids can believe in, and I hate to break it to you, PKTrekGirl, but you live in a nation with fellow Trekkers like that (hate to break it to you again, but most people love the characters on Enterprise as well). That's one of the reasons why Star Trek: New Voyages is so popular, and sadly DS9 is not, because of that quality that you find so unrealistic. The sooner that you and the other lovers of dysfunction get that, the better that you can deal with Star Trek. Or if you can't, then maybe it's time for you to do what I and a very likely silent majority wish that you would do: find some other program to watch.
Still missed the point. But thanks for playing, just the same.
It is pretty clear to me than you are more interested in trashing BSG (and DS9 - presumably in a blatant attempt to piss me off?) than in discussing what I was actually saying, so I'll skip it and go back to thinking about Jamie Bamber in a towel.
I want to see gay characters in Star Trek, and if possible, in the new movie. Speaking of which, the next Star Trek: New Voyages show will have said gay characters in the form of Peter Kirk and his lover (let's hope that they don't pull a 'Willow & Tara' and kill off Peter's lover at the end of the episode)!
Hold on, I never said it or meant it that way.
So gay = "relentlessly dark."
And not gay = "hopefulness."
Got it!
Hold on, I never said it or meant it that way.
Okay, then I'm totally lost.
TBonz recommends all the mods take a course in penii impediment. For the Trek XI mods it's mandatory.
