Star Trek Discovery ***Season 3*** [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

_Kaiser_

AllForIt wrote: »

^^ I think you do have a point. I would argue all the 'progressive' characters are 'the goodies'. They're not the baddies.

No problem with having them in the show, but they could do it without it looking so forced. Not that big of a deal, it's just that as I say it all seems a bit too obvious, and it's just a bit of a distraction.

Garak of DS9 was a bit on the camp side, him being a dressmaker as well, and I always though he was inferred to be gay, but in one episode he did have a female love interest. I was personally a bit disappointed by that because I read it all wrong. If he was gay that would be the way to do it, not make a big deal of it, not make it so important. It's just a trait rather than anything more serious.

Nah Garak and Zyal was an ongoing storyline in the show. I have seen stuff posted before about him and Bashir, but I think that started as Garak keeping himself amused and sharp by friendly sparring with an idealistic and naive young Starfleet officer that in the end grew into a genuine friendship.

odyssey06

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Nah Garak and Zyal was an ongoing storyline in the show. I have seen stuff posted before about him and Bashir, but I think that started as Garak keeping himself amused and sharp by friendly sparring with an idealistic and naive young Starfleet officer that in the end grew into a genuine friendship.

And for all we know, he based his 'tailor' persona on the mannerisms of a real tailor he had met, and thought it would make for a dis-arming, non-threatening persona for a "not your typical Cardassian" on a Bajoran space station.

It works on many levels

pixelburp

murpho999 wrote: »

They have included a gay couple in it just for the sake of it..

This line confuses me. Disco never made a thing of their identity, it was completely understated (resurrection notwithstanding). No more or less than Uhura or Sulu beforehand being for the sake of it. Or Kiko and Miles more accurately, their function was to be a stable, loving couple. So yeah, "for the sake of it" on a purely technical sense, but that reads like Pure Trek and see no problem? Reads like the suggestion be that gay characters can only be present if sexuality is integral to the story; but then that's backwards thinking and runs against Fed utopianism.

If there was a point it's that gay couples could be gay without it being a Big Story Twist. Or the "flamboyant best friend" cliché still beloved of US drama. So normalisation in the tradition of TOS. Otherwise, a script in Trek where gayness was a (plot)point of conflict would have been really antithetical to Treks mission statement and then folks would REALLY be complaining about "virtue signalling".

Appreciate it's honing in on one line but feels very "damned if you do...". Promotional material might crow but the substance of the actual show never suggested preaching, quite the opposite IMO.

Stark

It was more weird how there had never been a gay character in all the years leading up to that. Was there a cull of gay people during WW-III / Eugenics wars or something and everything in the 22nd/23rd/24th centuries was exclusively heterosexual as a result?

pixelburp

Stark wrote: »

It was more weird how there had never been a gay character in all the years leading up to that. Was there a cull of gay people during WW-III / Eugenics wars or something and everything in the 22nd/23rd/24th centuries was exclusively heterosexual as a result?

Simple US politics; think of the time the shows were made - the era when Jodie Foster had to pretend to have really close female friends rather than be true to herself publicly. I'd heard tell Roddenberry wanted a gay character at various points but was shot down by the studio.

Normalisation of gay people in life, nevermind the media, is barely a generation old really; we only legalised gay marriage in the last 2 years so are not entirely ahead of the curve ourselves. So having fictional gay characters - whose defining trait isn't how conflicting and dramatic being gay can be - is as important as Uhura ever was. Culber & Stamets just were. That was the point.

Justin Credible Darts

there were gay characters in the mirror universe,
dax, kira and leeta for instance

Goodshape

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

there were gay characters in the mirror universe,
dax, kira and leeta for instance

They were more like straight male fantasy characters than "gay characters".

murpho999

pixelburp wrote: »

This line confuses me. Disco never made a thing of their identity, it was completely understated (resurrection notwithstanding). No more or less than Uhura or Sulu beforehand being for the sake of it. Or Kiko and Miles more accurately, their function was to be a stable, loving couple. So yeah, "for the sake of it" on a purely technical sense, but that reads like Pure Trek and see no problem? Reads like the suggestion be that gay characters can only be present if sexuality is integral to the story; but then that's backwards thinking and runs against Fed utopianism.

If there was a point it's that gay couples could be gay without it being a Big Story Twist. Or the "flamboyant best friend" cliché still beloved of US drama. So normalisation in the tradition of TOS. Otherwise, a script in Trek where gayness was a (plot)point of conflict would have been really antithetical to Treks mission statement and then folks would REALLY be complaining about "virtue signalling".

Appreciate it's honing in on one line but feels very "damned if you do...". Promotional material might crow but the substance of the actual show never suggested preaching, quite the opposite IMO.

OK, maybe I'm just being harsh as I just hate what Kurtzman and his gang have done to Star Trek and its legacy and peeing all over canon but I do feel that the gay couple were put in just to show how modern ST has become. Like it had to be done alongside it's portrayal of women as all powerful and men being weak.

Stark

Since when are men portrayed as weak? Speaking as a male who's watched it and never had any issue with the characterisation of the male characters.

murpho999

Stark wrote: »

Since when are men portrayed as weak? Speaking as a male who's watched it and never had any issue with the characterisation of the male characters.

All the bad characters in STD are straight white males.

The only exception is Pike.

I just feel the show now has a political agenda which it didn't have before.

That combined with poor writing and character development just made me dislike a lot about STD & Picard.

Stark

murpho999 wrote: »

All the bad characters in STD are straight white males.

The only exception is Pike.

Not sure what you mean by "bad" character? Badly written or "bad guy" character.

Bad guy characters: Lorca, Mirror Georgiou, L'Rell, Voq. Section 31 guy? (bit ambgious) . I'd say about equal representation there.

Good guy characters: Suru, Pike, Sarek, Tyler, Spock. Stamets and Culbert still count as men even if they're not "straight and white", bit of goalpost moving there.

In terms of "badly written", I found Lorca to be a much better character than the "a bit too perfect" Captain Georgiou who preceded him. Same with the likes of Pike being much better written than many of the female characters. So it's not like they're focusing all the good writing on one gender at the expense of the poor extinction threatened "straight white male".

Honestly, all the complaints over including non "straight white male" characters are tiresome. The real world isn't exclusively male, white, heterosexual. No reason why a portrayal of the 23rd century covering an intergalactic federation of alien species has to be.

AMKC

pixelburp wrote: »

Simple US politics; think of the time the shows were made - the era when Jodie Foster had to pretend to have really close female friends rather than be true to herself publicly. I'd heard tell Roddenberry wanted a gay character at various points but was shot down by the studio.

Normalisation of gay people in life, nevermind the media, is barely a generation old really; we only legalised gay marriage in the last 2 years so are not entirely ahead of the curve ourselves. So having fictional gay characters - whose defining trait isn't how conflicting and dramatic being gay can be - is as important as Uhura ever was. Culber & Stamets just were. That was the point.

Its longer than that here. It must be 4 or 5 years since gay marriage was legalised here. So where are you in America or Canada or or Australia? Ye they all tend to be a bit slower alright when it comes to change. Us Irish were for a while but have made great progress in thf last decade or two. Still away to go but slowly we are getting there. When what clothes a person wears is not something to be stuffed at and looked down at anymore the World will be a much better place.

pixelburp

murpho999 wrote: »

OK, maybe I'm just being harsh as I just what Kurtzman and his gang have done to Star Trek and its legacy and peeing all over canon but I do feel that the gay couple were put in just to show how modern ST has become. Like it had to be done alongside it's portrayal of women as all powerful and men being weak.

But Trek's legacy is exactly that; showing modernity through inclusion - from its outset based on prevailing social winds of the time. That's literally one of its lauded thematic calling cards: TOS' casting explicitly about showing inclusivity and integration at a time when the US was anything but. That casting wasn't accident, Roddenberry pursued it "for its own sake".

As said, Homosexuals were a bridge (aha!) too far, given it was still broadly illegal at worst, and just vilified at best depending on what US state or country you were in. While even the famous First Interracial Kiss was (IIRC) somewhat lessened by being forced under hypnosis, presumably trying to reduce outrage. While Nichelle Nichols was famously on cusp of leaving 'cos her "character" was a non-existent entity: she was a token black character; she'd have bitten your arm off for Stamets' story arc.

To criticise Trek for performative inclusion, is to criticise Trek. To criticise the mere presence of gay character for the sake of their sexuality only furthers the stereotype that their presence in any Fiction can only be that of the exotic. That there are no normal gay people, only flamboyant clichés or walking Tragedy Generators. Just having two gay folk, happily existing as gay folk. Yes it's intentional - that, again, is the point of Trek. In a show of Bad Writing, normalising the gay couple was one of the few examples of Good writing, insofar as it skirted lazy gay clichés.

And beyond anything else, Stamets and Culbar's relationship felt more organic and earned than Burnham & Tyler. If they wanted to push those two as the main romantic leads then it'd be better than anything else pushed so far.

AMKC wrote: »

Its longer than that here. It must be 4 or 5 years since gay marriage was legalised here. So where are you in America or Canada or or Australia? Ye they all tend to be a bit slower alright when it comes to change. Us Irish were for a while but have made great progress in thf last decade or two. Still away to go but slowly we are getting there. When what clothes a person wears is not something to be stuffed at and looked down at anymore the World will be a much better place.

Nope, I'm in Ireland I just hadn't bothered googling when the referendum was. Felt like only a couple of years but could be mixing it up with the 8th Referendum. Whenever it was, we were the first country to legalise gay marriage by democratic vote so we have that going for ourselves.

AMKC

pixelburp wrote: »

But Trek's legacy is exactly that; showing modernity through inclusion - from its outset based on prevailing social winds of the time. That's literally one of its lauded thematic calling cards: TOS' casting explicitly about showing inclusivity and integration at a time when the US was anything but. That casting wasn't accident, Roddenberry pursued it "for its own sake".

As said, Homosexuals were a bridge (aha!) too far, given it was still broadly illegal at worst, and just vilified at best depending on what US state or country you were in. While even the famous First Interracial Kiss was (IIRC) somewhat lessened by being forced under hypnosis, presumably trying to reduce outrage. While Nichelle Nichols was famously on cusp of leaving 'cos her "character" was a non-existent entity: she was a token black character; she'd have bitten your arm off for Stamets' story arc.

To criticise Trek for performative inclusion, is to criticise Trek. To criticise the mere presence of gay character for the sake of their sexuality only furthers the stereotype that their presence in any Fiction can only be that of the exotic. That there are no normal gay people, only flamboyant clichés or walking Tragedy Generators. Just having two gay folk, happily existing as gay folk. Yes it's intentional - that, again, is the point of Trek. In a show of Bad Writing, normalising the gay couple was one of the few examples of Good writing, insofar as it skirted lazy gay clichés.

And beyond anything else, Stamets and Culbar's relationship felt more organic and earned than Burnham & Tyler. If they wanted to push those two as the main romantic leads then it'd be better than anything else pushed so far.



Nope, I'm in Ireland I just hadn't bothered googling when the referendum was. Felt like only a couple of years but could be mixing it up with the 8th Referendum. Whenever it was, we were the first country to legalise gay marriage by democratic vote so we have that going for ourselves.

I just looked. Believe it or not it will be 5 years i on November 17 since we legalised it.
Ye I think the abortion referendum was 2 years ago.

murpho999

Stark wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by "bad" character? Badly written or "bad guy" character.

Bad guy characters: Lorca, Mirror Georgiou, L'Rell, Voq. Section 31 guy? (bit ambgious) . I'd say about equal representation there.

Good guy characters: Suru, Pike, Sarek, Tyler, Spock. Stamets and Culbert still count as men even if they're not "straight and white", bit of goalpost moving there.

In terms of "badly written", I found Lorca to be a much better character than the "a bit too perfect" Captain Georgiou who preceded him. Same with the likes of Pike being much better written than many of the female characters. So it's not like they're focusing all the good writing on one gender at the expense of the poor extinction threatened "straight white male".

Honestly, all the complaints over including non "straight white male" characters are tiresome. The real world isn't exclusively male, white, heterosexual. No reason why a portrayal of the 23rd century covering an intergalactic federation of alien species has to be.

Well by bad I would probably mean both, it's a poorly written show.
As you may have gathered I'm not a fan of the new ST or its writers.

As you said Lorca was a bad guy. White Male.

Captain Georgiou portrayed as perfect. Female.
Do you not see the trend?

The main protagonist is female who is poorly written and developed. She's too earnest and perfect. Either in terrible pain and anguish or resolving huge problems.

I have no issue with inclusion. It's correct but don't make a deal of it.

Stark

murpho999 wrote: »

Well by bad I would probably mean both, it's a poorly written show.
As you may have gathered I'm not a fan of the new ST or its writers.

As you said Lorca was a bad guy. White Male.

Captain Georgiou portrayed as perfect. Female.
Do you not see the trend?

Nope, but then I'm not really insecure about being male or having to have every single character be a representation of myself either. Captain Georgiou was written for one reason: to be killed off and to make Burnham look really bad for being the reason for her being killed off. Hence the lack of nuance to her character and why her character was "too perfect". She was female because that meant a more natural fit for role model/mentor to Burnham. You're cherry picking. If you look beyond your biases, you'll see that there's a spread of good and bad characters across both genders. Jason Isaacs certainly didn't get a rough deal. Lorca was one of my favourite characters from the show, he did much better out of it than Michelle Yeoh with her transition from "written to be killed off" character to cartoon villain character.

Goodshape

murpho999 wrote: »

Well by bad I would probably mean both, it's a poorly written show.
As you may have gathered I'm not a fan of the new ST or its writers.

As you said Lorca was a bad guy. White Male.

Captain Georgiou portrayed as perfect. Female.
Do you not see the trend?

The main protagonist is female who is poorly written and developed. She's too earnest and perfect. Either in terrible pain and anguish or resolving huge problems.

I have no issue with inclusion. It's correct but don't make a deal of it.

Would it be better if the goodies were male and the baddies were female?

Or is it just too many females in general?


And that's leaving aside that a) an example of 2 is not a trend, and b) there's Pike, Spock, Saru, Mirror Georgiou and the alluring possibility of Prime Lorca to counter your example of 2.

pixelburp

Georgiou was a Plot Sacrifice, I don't think it's accurate to straw-man her based on a single story appearance - especially as the bulk of her existence with Discovery is as the comically vampish alternate version. An alternate who started as plain evil and now probably rests somewhere in the "chaotic neutral" strand; someone who'll be good when the plot demands it. I'd put her beside Alternate Kira in terms of messaging though.

As to Lorca, well again that's a tricky one because even those of us who liked Discovery on balance would admit that the back half of both seasons were total messes - Season 1 in particular. That finale went completely batshít with the Alt Universe twist, so props for at least turning the knob up to 11. But Lorca only became cartoonishly evil in that finale, for which I would argue gets a pass.

For the bulk of Season 1, Lorca appeared to be heading in a different direction; a conflicted character scarred by his past and hiding his PTSD from his lover. He still appeared to be a good man and a Federation Captain willing to do the right thing. That first half of Discovery is full of random elements never explored or just plain forgotten (remember the reflection of Stamets that persisted after he left the bathroom?). I wouldn't ascribe Agendas to something easier explained by the fact there were 2 (or was it 3??) separate producing teams behind Season 1. That season was a MESS, there's nothing to be determined from that except "Making TV is hard".

It just reads a little Confirmation Bias; I mean we're all guilty of it, and succumb it whether it's in regards to Trek or something important (;)), but to crib about agendas in Trek is to allow hindsight to blind towards the simple truth. That if you boiled Trek down to its core concepts, it's absolute simplest embryonic form ... you get Space Exploration (which yes, Disco is guilty of missing), and Social Inclusion.

AMKC

Goodshape wrote: »

Would it be better if the goodies were male and the baddies were female?

Or is it just too many females in general?


And that's leaving aside that a) an example of 2 is not a trend, and b) there's Pike, Spock, Saru, Mirror Georgiou and the alluring possibility of Prime Lorca to counter your example of 2.

Lol never thought I would see a Star Trek thread where someone thinks there maybe was to many Females lol. Surely most men would be happy having more females to look at and ogle even dream about.

murpho999

pixelburp wrote: »

But Trek's legacy is exactly that; showing modernity through inclusion - from its outset based on prevailing social winds of the time. That's literally one of its lauded thematic calling cards: TOS' casting explicitly about showing inclusivity and integration at a time when the US was anything but. That casting wasn't accident, Roddenberry pursued it "for its own sake".

As said, Homosexuals were a bridge (aha!) too far, given it was still broadly illegal at worst, and just vilified at best depending on what US state or country you were in. While even the famous First Interracial Kiss was (IIRC) somewhat lessened by being forced under hypnosis, presumably trying to reduce outrage. While Nichelle Nichols was famously on cusp of leaving 'cos her "character" was a non-existent entity: she was a token black character; she'd have bitten your arm off for Stamets' story arc.

To criticise Trek for performative inclusion, is to criticise Trek. To criticise the mere presence of gay character for the sake of their sexuality only furthers the stereotype that their presence in any Fiction can only be that of the exotic. That there are no normal gay people, only flamboyant clichés or walking Tragedy Generators. Just having two gay folk, happily existing as gay folk. Yes it's intentional - that, again, is the point of Trek. In a show of Bad Writing, normalising the gay couple was one of the few examples of Good writing, insofar as it skirted lazy gay clichés.

And beyond anything else, Stamets and Culbar's relationship felt more organic and earned than Burnham & Tyler. If they wanted to push those two as the main romantic leads then it'd be better than anything else pushed so far.



Nope, I'm in Ireland I just hadn't bothered googling when the referendum was. Felt like only a couple of years but could be mixing it up with the 8th Referendum. Whenever it was, we were the first country to legalise gay marriage by democratic vote so we have that going for ourselves.

I have zero issue with any characters of any description being in the show.
That is correct and progressive.

The thing about Star Trek originally was that it was the first show to feature a major black character, first inter-racial kiss etc. I think she was more than what you said but of course they are reflective of society at the time.
But did Gene Roddenberry announce before the season there'd be a black female officer on the bridge? I doubt it. They were also groundbreaking at the time for having Chekov and Sulu as well.

Things just happened on the show and viewers had to deal with it.

But now STD to me has a political and social justice agenda. It's no co-incidence that the main character is female and black who is portrayed in S2 as a flawless problem solver who will rescue any situation.
To me they've included a gay couple just to show how progressive and modern they are, whereas in previous shows couples relationships was not really a thing. Keiko and O'Brien were the only ones I can think of but Keiko was not in a lot of episodes.
Now they are pre announcing a binary character. Why?

Why make an issue of it? Why not introduce the character like any other and then develop their story and let the viewer learn about them?

No , instead they're including non-binary and transgender characters and making a big fuss about it before they're introduced.

Have they done that with other characters?

Also, they're not really groundbreaking are they? ST TNG and DS9 had similar characters (albeit guests) in the 90s and there was no fuss about it.

The point is that Gene Roddenberry's shows may have had a political agenda, as many accused him of being communist, but it was more subtle in it's delivery and was also ahead of it's time in many things in as far as it was allowed to be.

STD is not ahead of it's time, it's just trying to show how socially aware they are and that's not what ST should be about.

Stark

murpho999 wrote: »

The point is that Gene Roddenberry's shows may have had a political agenda, as many accused him of being communist, but it was more subtle in it's delivery and was also ahead of it's time in many things in as far as it was allowed to be.

Subtle as a brick to the face

murpho999 wrote:

To me they've included a gay couple just to show how progressive and modern they are, whereas in previous shows couples relationships was not really a thing. Keiko and O'Brien were the only ones I can think of but Keiko was not in a lot of episodes.
Now they are pre announcing a binary character. Why?

Why make an issue of it? Why not introduce the character like any other and then develop their story and let the viewer learn about them?

Is that not exactly what they did? We didn't find out about Stamets and Culber's sexuality until several episodes in until they're shown brushing their teeth while talking about what happened to Stamets earlier in the day.

murpho999

Goodshape wrote: »

Would it be better if the goodies were male and the baddies were female?

Or is it just too many females in general?


And that's leaving aside that a) an example of 2 is not a trend, and b) there's Pike, Spock, Saru, Mirror Georgiou and the alluring possibility of Prime Lorca to counter your example of 2.

It's not about too many males or females but how they're portrayed. It's also about their colour.

Even Mirror Georguou is being shown with redeeming qualities.

Pike & Spock can't be messed with due to canon and Saru is non human looking.

Also, I don't know if Prime Lorca will be a thing as I thought it was all going to be set in the future from now on?

Stark

murpho999 wrote:

Pike & Spock can't be messed with due to canon and Saru is non human looking.

So not just the case that all characters on ST must be straight, male and white, they also have to be human looking. Are you sure Star Trek is the show for you?

murpho999

AMKC wrote: »

Lol never thought I would see a Star Trek thread where someone thinks there maybe was to many Females lol. Surely most men would be happy having more females to look at and ogle even dream about.

I never said there were too many females, I said about how they're being portrayed.

They should all be in the 60's miniskirt and boots uniforms for ogling purposes anyway.:p

murpho999

Stark wrote: »

So not just the case that all characters on ST must be straight, male and white, they also have to be human looking. Are you sure Star Trek is the show for you?

I never said about being straight. Maybe reread my posts properly. I'm not concerned character's sexuality at all.

I'm making the point that the heroes in STD are female and/or from minority groups and the baddies are generally white males.

Finally, I've been watching ST for over 40 years and I love the show and completely get its premise but I don't think the modern day writers d.
I don't even think they have watched or liked the older Star Treks.

pixelburp

murpho999 wrote: »

I have zero issue with any characters of any description being in the show.
That is correct and progressive.

The thing about Star Trek originally was that it was the first show to feature a major black character, first inter-racial kiss etc. I think she was more than what you said but of course they are reflective of society at the time.
But did Gene Roddenberry announce before the season there'd be a black female officer on the bridge? I doubt it. They were also groundbreaking at the time for having Chekov and Sulu as well.

But TOS had an agenda, I really don't understand how you don't see that. Why does it matter whether Roddenberry did or didn't publicly talk about the casting? Maybe he did, hard to know without deepdiving into 60 year old press releases lol. The inclusivity was still 100% intentional from the outset, the inclusivity the way it was by design. An agenda, clear as day. It wasn't a happy accident, and no less planned than anything you're complaining about how with Discovery.

More so really, as Roddenberry arguably started with the desire for a multi-racial cast and worked backwards. Chekov only becoming Russian after the studio wanted a young bridge member for that audience demographic.

TBH your beef comes across like you wanna be shooting the messenger, not the content if you think about it for a minute. The difference here is you don't like them announcing before the show airs. Ok, so they wanna puff their chests for hiring a non-binary actor. Makes no odds to me.

Fine. But given you don't know Roddenberry's publicity schedule from the 1960s then the logic demands: in 5 years time who'll know or care what was said or not said during the build-up to Season 3? It'll be judged on its own merits, not press releases as to its inclusive intentions.

murpho999 wrote: »

To me they've included a gay couple just to show how progressive and modern they are, whereas in previous shows couples relationships was not really a thing. Keiko and O'Brien were the only ones I can think of but Keiko was not in a lot of episodes.
Now they are pre announcing a binary character. Why?

Why make an issue of it? Why not introduce the character like any other and then develop their story and let the viewer learn about them?

Respectfully I can't keep up with your wheeling logic here; you're bouncing between Stamets / Culber and some casting announcements. And I think I've already explained the rationale of Stamets & Culber and how they perfectly fit into prior themes of Trek.

Let me reframe my point to a question back to you: what, to your mind, would be the approach to having a gay character in Trek that WASN'T making " an issue of it".

Leave aside casting announcements, all that jazz. Just the content of the script and story. You seem convinced Stamets & Culbar were somehow lionised. How would you do it? Cos as it stands Stamets / Culbar were a normal, well adjusted couple and unsure how or where you think this could have been made subtler.

Goodshape

murpho999 wrote: »

It's not about too many males or females but how they're portrayed. It's also about their colour.

Even Mirror Georguou is being shown with redeeming qualities.

Pike & Spock can't be messed with due to canon and Saru is non human looking.

Also, I don't know if Prime Lorca will be a thing as I thought it was all going to be set in the future from now on?

Gotcha. So it's not enough straight, white, well written, human-looking, good (or showing redeeming qualities), male characters who have not previously appeared in the franchise.

Phew. I guess you're right! Disgraceful lack of representation.

murpho999

pixelburp wrote: »

But TOS had an agenda, I really don't understand how you don't see that. Why does it matter whether Roddenberry did or didn't publicly talk about the casting? Maybe he did, hard to know without deepdiving into 60 year old press releases lol. The inclusivity was still 100% intentional from the outset, the inclusivity the way it was by design. An agenda, clear as day. It wasn't a happy accident, and no less planned than anything you're complaining about how with Discovery.

More so really, as Roddenberry arguably started with the desire for a multi-racial cast and worked backwards. Chekov only becoming Russian after the studio wanted a young bridge member for that audience demographic.

TBH your beef comes across like you wanna be shooting the messenger, not the content if you think about it for a minute. The difference here is you don't like them announcing before the show airs. Ok, so they wanna puff their chests for hiring a non-binary actor. Makes no odds to me.

Fine. But given you don't know Roddenberry's publicity schedule from the 1960s then the logic demands: in 5 years time who'll know or care what was said or not said during the build-up to Season 3? It'll be judged on its own merits, not press releases as to its inclusive intentions.




Respectfully I can't keep up with your wheeling logic here; you're bouncing between Stamets / Culber and some casting announcements. And I think I've already explained the rationale of Stamets & Culber and how they perfectly fit into prior themes of Trek.

Let me reframe my point to a question back to you: what, to your mind, would be the approach to having a gay character in Trek that WASN'T making " an issue of it".

Leave aside casting announcements, all that jazz. Just the content of the script and story. You seem convinced Stamets & Culbar were somehow lionised. How would you do it? Cos as it stands Stamets / Culbar were a normal, well adjusted couple and unsure how or where you think this could have been made subtler.

Ok maybe I'm not putting my points across well and I hope I'm not coming across in anyway homophobic as I'm not at all.

I have zero issue with gay characters being included in the show but I just feel that they've included a gay couple and we get to see them brush their teeth together in cute matching PJs and then see (after the ridiculous resurrection arc) how they have relationship problems and now they appear to be back together. As I've said ST was never about couples and their relationships.

So why have they included a gay couple? At a time when gay marriage is correctly now a real thing in many societies?

As you said ST TOS did have a political agenda but I think what they did and what they commented on were ground breaking and first seens and also commenting on real issues in the society of the day and that was racism (which despite BLM issues now was worse then than now), sexism, war etc.

STD is not doing anything like that They're not the first show to have a gay couple. Nor will they be the first with a transgender character. They're not making people think or question their morales or beliefs which I would argue that the original Star Trek did.

They're just trying to appear modern and inclusive and politically correct. I hope you understand the difference that I'm trying to make here.

Also I think in 5 years time the big issue will be how bad the shows are in terms of being Star Trek and how it compares to The Orville.

Let me reframe my point to a question back to you: what, to your mind, would be the approach to having a gay character in Trek that WASN'T making " an issue of it".

Leave aside casting announcements, all that jazz. Just the content of the script and story. You seem convinced Stamets & Culbar were somehow lionised. How would you do it? Cos as it stands Stamets / Culbar were a normal, well adjusted couple and unsure how or where you think this could have been made subtler.

You're making a bigger issue of the gay couple than I am. They were fine but I just wondered why they were there.

My main issue is how they're making a big deal of introducing a transgender character.

If it was up to me I'd have them in the show, no problem but no fuss about it and not have their character's development defined by their sexuality just make it known what they are but then have as little attention drawn to it as possible so they're simply seen as a normal part of the crew and society.

murpho999

Goodshape wrote: »

Gotcha. So it's not enough straight, white, well written, human-looking, good (or showing redeeming qualities), male characters who have not previously appeared in the franchise.

Phew. I guess you're right! Disgraceful lack of representation.

No it's about having a mix.

If you don't see white straight males mostly being portrayed as bad and minorities being portrayed as all heroic as stereotyping and discriminating then we'll just leave it at that. To me it's pandering to political correctness and social justice warriors.

But please stop trying to make out that I just want to watch "good" white make characters , that's not my point at all.

pixelburp

murpho999 wrote: »

[...]

So why have they included a gay couple? At a time when gay marriage is correctly now a real thing in many societies?

Many, but not all and not least in America where the argument could be made that is has gone backwards in recent years. LGBTQ rights is still a hot potato and active topic, with various efforts to either stymy or reduce rights afforded to gay people. Just to look at the current VP, an advocate of the whole "pray the gay away" treatment to "cure" homosexuality; or when Governor of Indiana and he obstructed a meaningful response to an AIDS epidemic. While IIRC the current administration in 2017 rolled back some key protections for LGBT people that were added during the previous President's run. IIRC there are active court cases about making discrimination based on orientation allowable, that could be the same as the above 2017 item though).

So TBH I wouldn't say that "prejudice is over" in the States - and let's not forget that's the primary audience for Discovery and most Trek. It's American pop culture for American social culture - international audiences second. Eastern European countries are showing strands of anti-gay legislation, with some national politicians demonising the community; while further afield you got horror shows like Chechnya where they throw accused homosexuals off rooftops.

So long ways to go really. And part of that battle is ... yeah, just adding normal gay characters in mass media (insofar as pertains to the episodes' content). Brushing teeth and generally being mundane. It sounds ludicrous and it kinda is, but that's what comes with progress.

murpho999 wrote: »

You're making a bigger issue of the gay couple than I am. They were fine but I just wondered why they were there.

They were there to be gay and normal. That's kinda the nub of it. That gay couples can be normal parts of dramatic fiction, and not something exotic or inherently tragic or "other". But, importantly, their characters were not defined by their sexuality either. It's all about normalisation, and not "othering" a community or people. Hence the similarities with TOS. Uhuru was there to be black, Stamets is there to be gay - at least the latter has a character and arc to call his own

edit: I'll be glad when we get another damn trailer, or the show actually starts - and we can have this debate ALLLLL over again