The Realities of Trek | Report this post to moderator
By: IamKirok!!! (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:21:09 on Apr 12, 2008

No matter how we choose to see it, here's the reality of how the show functions:

Trek works out current societal issues via the morality play formula. Thats what makes it stand above regular sci-fi. Too many examples to mention. We all get that.

The second way Trek functions, is it breaks past norms of our present day, purposefully, to propose how the future will be. Examples: Uhura, Sulu and Chekov as main characters. The Kirk/Uhura kiss. This was done specifically to attack the prejudices of the time and to say, "Hey, we can get past that."

So, then, would creating a homosexual character make sense in Trek? Seems to me it is right in the pocket for what Trek does.

A contrived character, no matter what he or she is, would be a drag on a show. right? People are posting that.

But, how many contrivances have we seen so far? When someone says "Borg show" or "Space Battle" I dont hear any geeks rising up and saying, " Well, we just dont want it to be a contrivance. We want it to be an organic part of the story" or "Borg battles are the past."

No, they say, "Cool! Space battle!" or "I love the Borg!"

Because people are still geeked out by homosexuality and they have a double standard. All of a sudden because its homosexuality we become drama critics? No, no. It's prejudice plain and simple. And I'm as guilty as anybody else.

So, I think a gay character would be fine. Maybe a gay couple would do the job even better!

Reply

Quote

Who knows the future... | Report this post to moderator
By: Hbasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:18:07 on Apr 11, 2008

OK, just for the record I'll stand up as the guy that wouldn't have stayed with Trek, had there been gay characters featured regularily in any of the shows.

I can accept people who live out their gay tendencies because everyone has the right to do what they want; that's the essense of free will. I don't have to like it, however, and I don't have to watch it. It's true that by the time mankind is able to colonise other planets, this probably won't be an issue anymore. But I also don't think we'll go into deep space until, maybe the 33th century. Until then, there will be time to sort out these things. It's inevitable that society will change in a number of ways, and I see no good reason to mock people now, because they don't agree with me. Time will deal with the tough issues, and there isn't much you or I can do about it anyway.

Reply

Quote

Roddenberry Was Right | Report this post to moderator
By: msspurlock (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:35:44 on Apr 10, 2008

People who are as sad and deluded as to think this will even be a topic of discussion in the 23rd Century are morons.

Morons lacking any imagination.

Morons seeking external validation in the present day for something that will not be a topic of discussion in the positive future Roddenberry outlined.

So anyone making an issue of it now, is either looking to cash in or get press coverage.

And anyone who claims that putting such storylines into a show doesn't make it "all about the gay characters" is an either an idiot, lying to others and themselves, or self-deluded in that aspect as well.

Pathetic.

Reply

Quote

As long as there's no neon sign... | Report this post to moderator
By: sb2004 (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:17:50 on Apr 10, 2008

The only problem I've had regarding gay characters in Trek is that, in all likelihood, the powers that be would have done something to hammer the point over our heads, sledgehammer-style. Trek wasn't known for its subtlety. And the problem is there's so much of a push for gay characters in Trek that the temptation might be to make the show (or episode) about being gay, in which case it just becomes The L Word, a show that means well but still pushes the titillation factor away from any "serious" approach to the subject.

And then you had Whedon who derailed Buffy with the whole Willow/Tara thing that took away from the show.

For the gold standard on how to showcase a gay character in a science fiction motif, Jack Harkness in Doctor Who and Torchwood is the way to go. And I consider it authoritative in some respects because the man who created Torchwood (if not necessarily Harkness, though he probably had a hand in guiding writer Stephen Moffatt), Russell T Davies, is not only gay himself but also created the acclaimed Queer as Folk. And he should know how it should be done. If Trek were to follow that lead (hell, cast John Barrowman as a Starfleet captain when he's done with TW), then they would be able to come up with a mixture that not only does justice to the gay characters BUT (and this is paramount - pun intended) in such a way that is appealing to the audience as a whole. There were worries that Torchwood, featuring a gay main character and supporting characters all of whom have some bisexual leanings, would not appeal to the same wide audience Doctor Who does. The ratings have proven this to be unfounded.

I never really had much faith in the production regimes of Trek (from Roddenberry through to B&B) to handle it properly.

Al

Reply

Quote

What about Lt. Hawke? | Report this post to moderator
By: VZX (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:40:18 on Apr 10, 2008

Wasnt Lt. Hawke from Star Trek: First Contact gay? I heard there was supposed to be a backstory about this in the movie but was cut for time.

Reply

Quote