Have the new Star Treks lost the progressive edge?
- Thread starter Oorang
- Start date
Great discussion! Thanks all!
I personally think it should be Sulu. IMO, it would be a great tribute to Takei. He's been fighting this fight for a long time in real life now and I'd love to see the franchise show their support.
Regarding how controversial some of TOS's progressive material was, I think some people are underestimating it. While the Kirk/Uhura kiss was probably the highest profile example, I think the real conflict had as much to do with depicting a black women ordering white men around. Keep in mind, the episode aired not long after JFK had to threaten the use the military against the state of Alabama if it continued to defy Brown v. Board of Education and only a decade after Eisenhower actually did send the military in to escort black kids to desegregated schools in defiance of the state of Arkansas. The military has only been used domestically for that kind of thing a handful of times in the history of our country and at the time, it was perceived as potentially being the start of a second civil war. Even the idea that black people could sit wherever they wanted on a bus was extremely controversial in those days, and a black woman commanding around white men and interracial kissing on tv, that was considered to be utterly shocking to much of the country in those days.
I personally think it should be Sulu. IMO, it would be a great tribute to Takei. He's been fighting this fight for a long time in real life now and I'd love to see the franchise show their support.
Regarding how controversial some of TOS's progressive material was, I think some people are underestimating it. While the Kirk/Uhura kiss was probably the highest profile example, I think the real conflict had as much to do with depicting a black women ordering white men around. Keep in mind, the episode aired not long after JFK had to threaten the use the military against the state of Alabama if it continued to defy Brown v. Board of Education and only a decade after Eisenhower actually did send the military in to escort black kids to desegregated schools in defiance of the state of Arkansas. The military has only been used domestically for that kind of thing a handful of times in the history of our country and at the time, it was perceived as potentially being the start of a second civil war. Even the idea that black people could sit wherever they wanted on a bus was extremely controversial in those days, and a black woman commanding around white men and interracial kissing on tv, that was considered to be utterly shocking to much of the country in those days.
Even though I barely watched TOS I don't think I like the idea of changing established characters orientation, or that the sexual orientation of the actor should have an impact on the character they portray. I would rather have some new characters introduced.
Yep. To an extent, I think the idea that the story just had a theme is sometimes being taken as it tackled an issue. The messages, when they exist, are seldom unique, or that profound or cutting edge.
There's no doubt "Star Trek" became an entertainment and pop culture phenomenon. Heck, here I am fifty years after TOS first aired and fifty years after Kindergarten posting about it on an Internet discussion board. However, I think the phenomenon has had some burnishing and polishing of just how significant the show (and subsequent shows) were in a grander scheme of things.
It was truly groundbreaking in spawning a franchise, a large fan base, and fan loyalty that's lasted decades for some of us. Even in its first run, something in TOS did strike a chord with a lot of people. The older brother of a friend of mine growing up actually tape-recorded every episode during the first run of the series.
To the extent that the content of the shows was groundbreaking, I'd say that's what we're still debating all these years later: what's myth, what's propaganda, and what's reality. All I'll say is in any phenomenon this big that's been around as long as it has, certain things about it have to be taken with big grains of salt. Perspective and context matter.
I really think you're underestimating the effect that Star Trek had on society. Take this interview with Nichell Nichols for example.
Nichelle Nichols said:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/star-trek-actress-nichelle-nichols-martin-luther-king-jr-impacted-decision-stay-enterprise-article-1.154674
As often as that story has changed over the years, I'm not sure how much weight I'd give it. YMMV.
But at the end of the day, it wasn't Roddenberry that drove racial diversity on Star Trek... it was advertisers and NBC. They were the ones to realize that minorities had money to spend. All one has to do is compare the lily-white "The Cage" to later episodes. If Nichols had left the series, I have no doubt she would've been replaced with another minority character.
The original Star Trek was an incredible TV series. But it also benefits from being in the right place at the right time.
She has no reason to lie. I'm not sure why you doubt her story. Here's another story with Whoopi Goldberg.
Whoopi Goldberg said:
There's also Obama posing with Nichelle during black history month in his office.
This was certainly significant to the life of Nichols, who was going to leave the show to go to Broadway and back to her first love, song and dance. But it didn't occur in a vacuum. In a broader context, as early as 1964, the president of CBS exhorted fellow broadcasters to get behind the civil rights movement and work to use the power and influence of TV to promote racial equality. The movement was already starting and Roddenberry was one of those who took part. He had worked with Nichols before and requested that she be the communications officer on the starship.
By the time TOS aired, and certainly by its second season, many shows featured regular cast members who were African-American. Of course, Nichols was one of the few women among them. Then again, not to sound cynical, but who's to say that if she didn't meet King, went through with her resignation, and went on to Broadway, that Roddenberry wouldn't have cast another African-American woman in the position, or even simply recast the character of Uhura with another actor?
It was a nice moment, though. However, I doubt history would've changed a lot if Nichols had decided to go on to Broadway.
Last edited:
I think this scene was just played for laughs.
Chekov would made for a fine ship's twink.
Why would the plot necessarily be "heavy handed?" The character who is gay would have their sexuality "on display" no more and no less than the hetero character around them. About the same as McCoy or Bashir or Tucker, for three examples.
Then why do we consistently see straight relationships highlighted? If a relationship is "normal" then surely we'd regularly see it ... wouldn't we?
In all honesty, when a character who is clearly homosexual or bisexual finally does appear as a main character on the show, it will be a big thing. Certainly for the gay fans of the show, probably for others too.
It will be the result of a deliberate decision on the part of TPTB, and it won't just kind of happen all by it's self.
Oh, you mean the same person who desperately ripped out a component at the last second, and then ran away and dove to the ground because this supposed "weapons expert" very obviously hadn't the slightest idea what she was doing?
They were looking for a planet in the "goldilocks zone" as a test site, why in the world would they scan the entire Ceti Alpha system?
Quite true. TNG didn't rock the boat or tackle topics in any meaningful way, other than superficially (looking at you "Symbiosis" and "The Outcast"). As David Gerrold said of TNG and its spinoffs, "Star Trek had become the McDonald's of science fiction."
I've long heard some fans giving the argument that gays were wiped out in Trek's future.
Only a few days ago somewhere on the forum it was suggested that the gays were kept segregated in different ships in Starfleet.
The abscence of gays on screen leave ugly interpretations like these valid to people who only count filmed Trek as canon.
I don't think anyone wants a story about homosexuality on Trek. Heavy handed is absolutely the wrong direction for that. What would be best is to have a gay character or two who are treated completely normally, their orientation being a non-issue. There are ways to bring the issue in subtlely as well. Perhaps Uhura could mention that she's going to miss her mother's anniversary party due to being in deep space, make a point thru casual dialogue she has two mothers. Besides making a point for diversity it adds a human element of the sacrifices the crew makes on their mission. Perhaps that's part of a subplot in Uhura and Spock's relationship becoming more serious, with marriage discussed.
Even just two guys holding hands in the rec room would be something.
The problem with the movies is that the cast are all new versions of well established heterosexual characters. A new Trek series with an all new cast of characters is fairly likely to finally have a gay character, if we ever get that again. Even still, every movie has some supporting characters where gays could be brought in, but that's not a priority to the new movies, which seem to be moving into more action movie explosions and pointless scenes of women in their underwear for the male gaze. The movies's new characters for STID were limited to bad guys, which isn't the best way to introduce the first on screen Trek gay character. Even the supporting cast outside of Kirk, Spock and Uhura haven't gotten much to do.
I have long thought that there was room to interpret Spock's issues with Vulcans and his emotions could be read thru a queer filter (most good stories are open to multiple interpretation) and I can see where STX's Spock story works as queer metaphor, it's long past time for Trek to have onscreen gay characters and not weak metaphor. Trek has betrayed the principals of TOS in it's lazy and cowardly avoidance of one of the most important social issues of the last few decades. I understand that it wasn't possible to have gay characters in the 60s, but it could've been possible in the 80s or 90s - at that point it still could've been groundbreaking. It was disappointing that ENT failed to deliver after early interviews suggested they might have a gay main character. That the new movies are still failing here is just pathetic.
I wish someone would ask Quinto about this. It's interesting that we do have a major character played by an openly gay actor, but he's never directly addressed this issue that I'm aware of.
It's worth pointing out that Trek Lit has been far more diverse for a long time, with many gay characters in supporting roles, with "main cast" characters in Titan, SCE, New Frontier, Vanguard and Seeker, as well as minor supporting characters thru the range.
Only a few days ago somewhere on the forum it was suggested that the gays were kept segregated in different ships in Starfleet.
The abscence of gays on screen leave ugly interpretations like these valid to people who only count filmed Trek as canon.
I don't think anyone wants a story about homosexuality on Trek. Heavy handed is absolutely the wrong direction for that. What would be best is to have a gay character or two who are treated completely normally, their orientation being a non-issue. There are ways to bring the issue in subtlely as well. Perhaps Uhura could mention that she's going to miss her mother's anniversary party due to being in deep space, make a point thru casual dialogue she has two mothers. Besides making a point for diversity it adds a human element of the sacrifices the crew makes on their mission. Perhaps that's part of a subplot in Uhura and Spock's relationship becoming more serious, with marriage discussed.
Even just two guys holding hands in the rec room would be something.
The problem with the movies is that the cast are all new versions of well established heterosexual characters. A new Trek series with an all new cast of characters is fairly likely to finally have a gay character, if we ever get that again. Even still, every movie has some supporting characters where gays could be brought in, but that's not a priority to the new movies, which seem to be moving into more action movie explosions and pointless scenes of women in their underwear for the male gaze. The movies's new characters for STID were limited to bad guys, which isn't the best way to introduce the first on screen Trek gay character. Even the supporting cast outside of Kirk, Spock and Uhura haven't gotten much to do.
I have long thought that there was room to interpret Spock's issues with Vulcans and his emotions could be read thru a queer filter (most good stories are open to multiple interpretation) and I can see where STX's Spock story works as queer metaphor, it's long past time for Trek to have onscreen gay characters and not weak metaphor. Trek has betrayed the principals of TOS in it's lazy and cowardly avoidance of one of the most important social issues of the last few decades. I understand that it wasn't possible to have gay characters in the 60s, but it could've been possible in the 80s or 90s - at that point it still could've been groundbreaking. It was disappointing that ENT failed to deliver after early interviews suggested they might have a gay main character. That the new movies are still failing here is just pathetic.
I wish someone would ask Quinto about this. It's interesting that we do have a major character played by an openly gay actor, but he's never directly addressed this issue that I'm aware of.
It's worth pointing out that Trek Lit has been far more diverse for a long time, with many gay characters in supporting roles, with "main cast" characters in Titan, SCE, New Frontier, Vanguard and Seeker, as well as minor supporting characters thru the range.
I think the fact that these interpretations are still possible casts a bad light on Star Trek's reputation as "progressive". It may not have been possible to have an openly gay character in 1966, though I always felt that Spock filled that role to a degree. But in 1987 or 1992 or 1994 or 2001, it makes the reputation a joke.
Yeah that and the single episode romances they always do for straight romances with Troi's boyfriends and Riker's girlfriends. Just have a dude beam down to a planet and fall for some dude on the planet, wrap it up by the end.
I don't know why the outcast from TNG gets such a bad rap though, just because the character is played by a woman - Riker was still into that alien before she identified as a woman I believe. Yeah they could have pushed the boundaries more there but it's not bad.
I thought the Outcast was successful with what they were doing for the time, but there could've been room for improvement. A male actor in the role would've driven the point of the story home better - going with a female actor was playing it safe.
Just to critique the episode's other issues, I don't think Soran was Riker's type. Besides her mousy looks, she was quiet and soft spoken, gentle, even timid. Riker's type is strong, powerful women, and he tends to go with really knockout strong but feminine women. Riker has a real fear of committment, but he seemed ready to commit to Soren very quickly. I think Riker was the wrong choice for the lead of this story. Geordie would've been more believable in this story I think.
I do think this is the best that tv Trek did with trying a gay story. But it still has a tragic ending, so it's not exactly inspirational, although hopefully some people developed more empathy towards the social stigma against homosexuality.
I have read somewhere where someone presented an interpretation of this story as being against gays. Soren is heterosexual and is persecuted by her homosexual society. Unfortunately, with a metaphorical story there's room for interpretation, and while that's almost certainly not the intention of the production, the interpretation does fit the details.
Just to critique the episode's other issues, I don't think Soran was Riker's type. Besides her mousy looks, she was quiet and soft spoken, gentle, even timid. Riker's type is strong, powerful women, and he tends to go with really knockout strong but feminine women. Riker has a real fear of committment, but he seemed ready to commit to Soren very quickly. I think Riker was the wrong choice for the lead of this story. Geordie would've been more believable in this story I think.
I do think this is the best that tv Trek did with trying a gay story. But it still has a tragic ending, so it's not exactly inspirational, although hopefully some people developed more empathy towards the social stigma against homosexuality.
I have read somewhere where someone presented an interpretation of this story as being against gays. Soren is heterosexual and is persecuted by her homosexual society. Unfortunately, with a metaphorical story there's room for interpretation, and while that's almost certainly not the intention of the production, the interpretation does fit the details.
I remember reading an interview with Abrams saying he wanted to include something implying that one of the characters was gay in ST3. Of course, with Abrams gone and Orci perhaps involved in name only, whether it actually makes it to Justin Lin's ST3 or not is anyone's guess.
