|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Apr 29, 2023 1:49:05 GMT
I can only highly recommend getting away from Star Trek as a franchise. It makes you a lot more selective about what parts of the franchise you want to watch and which ones to ignore/not bother with in the first place. And it takes away a lot of frustration. I'm not surprised the fandom gobbled up PIC's season 3 the way it did. You have to take into account that people demanded a TNG reunion series from the start. Despite Sir Patrick saying over and over again that it wasn't going to be TNG 2.0. The fans didn't want to hear that. They wanted their reunion show. They wanted to see their beloved TNG characters back on screen. They wanted their chilhood nostalgia. All Paramount had to do was bring the TNG cast back and market it right. Part of me thinks this was their plan all along - soothe Sir Patrick by giving him what he wants for two seasons and then persuade him to give in to make a reunion show that retcons the previous seasons as best as it can and gives the fans what they want and they won't notice how terrible the plot actually is because by that point they will be so starved for anything familiar that they will eat it all up, no questions asked, and then they will demand more of the mindless nostalgia and all you have to do is feed them more with a spin-off show that you blatantly and clumsily set up in the final episode, so, win-win for Paramount. I refuse to believe that Matalas didn't know what he was doing, I don't believe his "it's an ending for the TNG crew" innocence even one bit - he set things up like this deliberately in the final episode so that a spin-off could be produced. None of this is an accident. Which is also why Matalas took no risks with this. Season 3 got rid of ANYTHING that might seem "controversial". They dialed back Seven and Raffi to a point where they're unrecognizable as a couple, there are no "progressive allegories" like the ones season 2 had that might upset conservative fans, the show is basically about old white dudes saving the universe with a little help from some black sidekick characters... etc. This plays a huge role as to why season 3 is so popular with a certain Youtube audience as well. To put it bluntly: Season 3 is a show written by a straight white dude for straight white dudes. It's as simple as that. My favorite (read this sarcastically) thing is that Matalas was all like "no, not really, nobody has time for romance in season 3" when he was asked about Seven and Raffi in season 3. And yet the first episode gives Jean-Luc and Laris sharing a kiss. Looks like romance to me. It then proceeds to hit the audience over the head with the (massively toxic) former straight romance between Jean-Luc and Crusher. It shows Riker and Troi, another straight romance. But "there is no time for romance" when it comes to the only visibly lgbt characters the show had. That tells you everything about how Matalas approached this particular issue. It sounds VERY much like a certain Rick Berman, who had the same kind of arguments as to why he never had any lgbt characters on TNG. This is what I mean when I say Matalas took no risks and this is one major reason why a certain part of the Trek fandom loves this season so much. It gave them what they're used to and it didn't try to "shove progressive stuff down our throats". I have seen at least some criticism towards the final two episodes as well tho, and I'm glad I did. This is one reason why I think quite a few people who were baited into loving every single second of the nostalgia fest will lose the rose-tinted glasses at some point and realize that season 3 as a whole is not as awesome as they were manipulated into believing. As for Jack... I could go on for days about how his presence makes no sense and how the show did a "great" job at turning Crusher into a massively toxic gaslighting galore character that not even I think she deserved, but eh. Whatever. They did what they did. All I can do is ignore this and decide that TNG ended with Nemesis, just as it should have. lol Her keeping Jack a secret from his own father was unforgivable. NOTHING in her experiences with Picard suggested that he wouldn't give his all to be a father, despite any initial reluctance (see: Jono, "Generations," "The Inner Light" et al). I've never been a fan of Beverly (not exactly a secret, right?) but this season made her look so much worse. And yes, you're right (as usual) in that Star Trek leaves me less and less engaged these days, though I do still very much enjoy "Strange New Worlds" and "Prodigy." "Lower Decks" and "Picard" are pretty much non-events for me. As Robin and I once commented in one of the earlier PIC discussion threads, it was pretty f**ked up that the only strong Black woman on PIC was also made to be a recovering drug addict and deadbeat mother. First of all, DRUG ADDICTION IN THE 25th CENTURY... I mean, have they ever watched Star Trek?? This is the show that once said mental illness was one serum away from being cured forever ("Whom Gods Destroy") and drug addiction could be cured with a hypo, yet Raffi is made a drug addict because... edgy. As for her relationship with Seven? I still have hope that might continue in a potential Star Trek: Legacy series (if it happens), but yeah, they've turned the volume down on that one pretty quickly, didn't they? Gotta keep those straight fanboys wanking off to their Seven action figures, right? Jeezus... |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Apr 29, 2023 2:07:45 GMT
I can only highly recommend getting away from Star Trek as a franchise. It makes you a lot more selective about what parts of the franchise you want to watch and which ones to ignore/not bother with in the first place. And it takes away a lot of frustration. I'm not surprised the fandom gobbled up PIC's season 3 the way it did. You have to take into account that people demanded a TNG reunion series from the start. Despite Sir Patrick saying over and over again that it wasn't going to be TNG 2.0. The fans didn't want to hear that. They wanted their reunion show. They wanted to see their beloved TNG characters back on screen. They wanted their chilhood nostalgia. All Paramount had to do was bring the TNG cast back and market it right. Part of me thinks this was their plan all along - soothe Sir Patrick by giving him what he wants for two seasons and then persuade him to give in to make a reunion show that retcons the previous seasons as best as it can and gives the fans what they want and they won't notice how terrible the plot actually is because by that point they will be so starved for anything familiar that they will eat it all up, no questions asked, and then they will demand more of the mindless nostalgia and all you have to do is feed them more with a spin-off show that you blatantly and clumsily set up in the final episode, so, win-win for Paramount. I refuse to believe that Matalas didn't know what he was doing, I don't believe his "it's an ending for the TNG crew" innocence even one bit - he set things up like this deliberately in the final episode so that a spin-off could be produced. None of this is an accident. Which is also why Matalas took no risks with this. Season 3 got rid of ANYTHING that might seem "controversial". They dialed back Seven and Raffi to a point where they're unrecognizable as a couple, there are no "progressive allegories" like the ones season 2 had that might upset conservative fans, the show is basically about old white dudes saving the universe with a little help from some black sidekick characters... etc. This plays a huge role as to why season 3 is so popular with a certain Youtube audience as well. To put it bluntly: Season 3 is a show written by a straight white dude for straight white dudes. It's as simple as that. My favorite (read this sarcastically) thing is that Matalas was all like "no, not really, nobody has time for romance in season 3" when he was asked about Seven and Raffi in season 3. And yet the first episode gives Jean-Luc and Laris sharing a kiss. Looks like romance to me. It then proceeds to hit the audience over the head with the (massively toxic) former straight romance between Jean-Luc and Crusher. It shows Riker and Troi, another straight romance. But "there is no time for romance" when it comes to the only visibly lgbt characters the show had. That tells you everything about how Matalas approached this particular issue. It sounds VERY much like a certain Rick Berman, who had the same kind of arguments as to why he never had any lgbt characters on TNG. This is what I mean when I say Matalas took no risks and this is one major reason why a certain part of the Trek fandom loves this season so much. It gave them what they're used to and it didn't try to "shove progressive stuff down our throats". I have seen at least some criticism towards the final two episodes as well tho, and I'm glad I did. This is one reason why I think quite a few people who were baited into loving every single second of the nostalgia fest will lose the rose-tinted glasses at some point and realize that season 3 as a whole is not as awesome as they were manipulated into believing. As for Jack... I could go on for days about how his presence makes no sense and how the show did a "great" job at turning Crusher into a massively toxic gaslighting galore character that not even I think she deserved, but eh. Whatever. They did what they did. All I can do is ignore this and decide that TNG ended with Nemesis, just as it should have. lol Her keeping Jack a secret from his own father was unforgivable. NOTHING in her experiences with Picard suggested that he wouldn't give his all to be a father, despite any initial reluctance (see: Jono, "Generations," "The Inner Light" et al). I've never been a fan of Beverly (not exactly a secret, right?) but this season made her look so much worse. And yes, you're right (as usual) in that Star Trek leaves me less and less engaged these days, though I do still very much enjoy "Strange New Worlds" and "Prodigy." "Lower Decks" and "Picard" are pretty much non-events for me. As Robin and I once commented in one of the earlier PIC discussion threads, it was pretty f**ked up that the only strong Black woman on PIC was also made to be a recovering drug addict and deadbeat mother. First of all, DRUG ADDICTION IN THE 25th CENTURY... I mean, have they ever watched Star Trek?? This is the show that once said mental illness was one serum away from being cured forever ("Whom Gods Destroy") and drug addiction could be cured with a hypo, yet Raffi is made a drug addict because... edgy. As for her relationship with Seven? I still have hope that might continue in a potential Star Trek: Legacy series (if it happens), but yeah, they've turned the volume down on that one pretty quickly, didn't they? Gotta keep those straight fanboys wanking off to their Seven action figures, right? Jeezus... Yeah, physical addiction is gone with a hypospray. The psychological need? The edge can be taken off that even today with pharmacology. I can see her still grappling with it to some extent because it's an easy escape when she's totaled her family life yet again, but, particularly with the Ferengi, she looked like she was physically craving it, and that I don't buy. But Raffi as an addict was not only a fun way for that part of the fandom to trash the character, it's also comfortable, as the black junkie that will destroy their lives for the next fix is a film trope better than half a century old now. |
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Apr 29, 2023 4:04:53 GMT
This.
It felt like a racist trope, or as Mr. Picard pointed out earlier, the perspective of a white, male fanboy perspective--not a diverse writing staff's perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Garak Nephew on Apr 29, 2023 16:22:30 GMT
Seven and Raffi are a big problem on the plot. First the writers on 2nd season throw at fans a bland "progressive" bone so that we can passively chew at the idea "see Trek is always ahead on minorities representation", when in reality it was a very superficial "gay couple" with zero nuanced or inside into their queerness. Then the writers on this season forget that completely and pretend to retcon it! In my opinion both instances are examples of de-queerness (I don't know if this is a word or a concept, I just came up with it), an active erasure trope. Token gays throw in the story just for image sake but with no real intention of fleshing them out.
I remember on the early episodes of this season a discussion ensued here about the odd behavior of Seven. Some of us speculated that she was showing signs of trauma, probably due to some bullying or psychological abuse by Shaw. Amazingly (or maybe not) that amount to nothing because the story never addressed it in any way and just let die to keep piling-up on the many grievances we have. But now that I think of it (in my head and only in my head) I like to think that there was something on Jerry Ryan acting that was commenting on that glaring plot hole, like a stand on the active de-queerness going on in the story. I believe Ryan to be a highly competent dramatic actress, and maybe her trauma-like gestures were pointing at Ryan disagreement of the story abandoning Seven and Raffi lesbian romance. But of course I have no evidence for this reading, I just think it fit Seven apparent uneasiness on the early episodes. |
|
|
|
Post by MrPicard on Apr 29, 2023 17:01:56 GMT
Well, from what I've seen, Shaw was essentially deadnaming Seven. Constantly. That would wear anyone down and cause trauma. And quickly.
And I would kinda have understood Crusher's actions if Jack had been the result of a drunk one night stand with a dude who was a total jerk and who would have been a terrible influence on a child and who she never wanted to see again and who would have had no interest in a son either. But we're talking about Jean-Luc Picard, the sweetest dork in the galaxy who made mixtapes for her and would have done his most awkward best to be a good father. But nah. She didn't tell him AND ghosted him for completely nonsensical reasons. After the fifth time they tried to be together. Can things be ANY more toxic? Can they make her look ANY worse? I don't think so. Apparently, according to Gates McFadden, the scene had a lot more lines that were actually cut and that would have made Crusher's position more understandable. They cut those lines. Of all the lines to cut, they cut those. The whole rest of the season hinges on believing that Crusher might have had a point and then they cut the lines that might have helped. ANYTHING might have helped to make her seem less like a massively vile toxic ex. Well, at least now I know why I've always loathed her in such an extreme way. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on Apr 29, 2023 17:32:05 GMT
Well, from what I've seen, Shaw was essentially deadnaming Seven. Constantly. That would wear anyone down and cause trauma. And quickly. Just this by itself is something that aggravates me to no end for a couple of reasons. One, it is bringing a current human social issue into the future where, considering what Star Trek WAS all about, that wouldn't have been an issue to begin with. Raffi's drug storyline being another. The type of person we look towards in the future of Star Trek is one who would have been respectful of another being's identity. This type of topic usually would have been brought up through an alien culture; not ours. Granted, it puts humanity on a pedestal and it does seem that this is not en vogue nowadays. I would argue, as it probably was in the late 60's, it is a good time to show how much better we can be. That brings me to #2: Shaw, in all of his totality, was just a regular 20th century dude. His character would have worked in a sitcom(and I do mean sitcom) set in our present. But not Star Trek. And certainly not as a captain of a Federation starship. Some freighter. Maybe. Both of these points hinge on The Federation not knowing that Shaw still had issues regarding the Borg. Totally legit. Because I just can't see how he, and Starfleet, would allow a former Borg to be his second in command. From what we've seen, usually the captain gets to pick their XO. It's just plain badly contrived writing aimed at getting a rise out of the trans community. It just feels so cheaply done. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Apr 29, 2023 17:44:25 GMT
Well, from what I've seen, Shaw was essentially deadnaming Seven. Constantly. That would wear anyone down and cause trauma. And quickly. And I would kinda have understood Crusher's actions if Jack had been the result of a drunk one night stand with a dude who was a total jerk and who would have been a terrible influence on a child and who she never wanted to see again and who would have had no interest in a son either. But we're talking about Jean-Luc Picard, the sweetest dork in the galaxy who made mixtapes for her and would have done his most awkward best to be a good father. But nah. She didn't tell him AND ghosted him for completely nonsensical reasons. After the fifth time they tried to be together. Can things be ANY more toxic? Can they make her look ANY worse? I don't think so. Apparently, according to Gates McFadden, the scene had a lot more lines that were actually cut and that would have made Crusher's position more understandable. They cut those lines. Of all the lines to cut, they cut those. The whole rest of the season hinges on believing that Crusher might have had a point and then they cut the lines that might have helped. ANYTHING might have helped to make her seem less like a massively vile toxic ex. Well, at least now I know why I've always loathed her in such an extreme way. lol He deadnamed her a lot. People trying to defend it said, "Well, listen to his history. Poor man has such a history with the Borg." So, what? If he's that mentally crushed by the Borg 20 years on, he should not have a Borg on his ship, and he probably shouldn't be in Starfleet at all anymore. Then, of course, you have the people defending it that are doing it because deadnaming is a part of the larger concept of trans identity that makes them feel icky and uncomfortable (i.e. OMFG, when did Star Trek go woke?") Of course they cut lines that might have helped. Because that would have involved talking about something with weight, and nothing in S3 was about that. So they added just another level of honest awful to her character.. I pretty much hated her before and I hate her now. She's awful. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Apr 29, 2023 18:05:21 GMT
Well, from what I've seen, Shaw was essentially deadnaming Seven. Constantly. That would wear anyone down and cause trauma. And quickly. Just this by itself is something that aggravates me to no end for a couple of reasons. One, it is bringing a current human social issue into the future where, considering what Star Trek WAS all about, that wouldn't have been an issue to begin with. Raffi's drug storyline being another. The type of person we look towards in the future of Star Trek is one who would have been respectful of another being's identity. This type of topic usually would have been brought up through an alien culture; not ours. Granted, it puts humanity on a pedestal and it does seem that this is not en vogue nowadays. I would argue, as it probably was in the late 60's, it is a good time to show how much better we can be. That brings me to #2: Shaw, in all of his totality, was just a regular 20th century dude. His character would have worked in a sitcom(and I do mean sitcom) set in our present. But not Star Trek. And certainly not as a captain of a Federation starship. Some freighter. Maybe. Both of these points hinge on The Federation not knowing that Shaw still had issues regarding the Borg. Totally legit. Because I just can't see how he, and Starfleet, would allow a former Borg to be his second in command. From what we've seen, usually the captain gets to pick their XO. It's just plain badly contrived writing aimed at getting a rise out of the trans community. It just feels so cheaply done. Now, I don't know where in the season it says this, and I don't want to go look, but I'm almost positive that Shaw has a throwaway line that says that he requested her assignment to the Titan. Why? Because he wants to punish her? And I don't think I agree entirely with the idea that he'd never be a starship captain. You know the old joke, "What do you call a med student that graduates 500th out of a class of 500? Doctor." I see him as a Lower Decks situation. Not everyone in Starfleet is the cream of the crop. For every Jean-Luc Picard, there's an I.M. Mediocre. These guys go onto ships and no one really expects anything from them. They're middle management. Shaw seems like a REALLY middle management guy. Toxic middle management that this world is also full of, but middle management all the same. Give him a workhorse ship to chair? Sure. But he's never going to be anyone's first thought for a premiere posting, and he seems to be openly aware of that. |
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on Apr 29, 2023 18:50:44 GMT
Shaw seems like a REALLY middle management guy. Toxic middle management that this world is also full of, but middle management all the same. Give him a workhorse ship to chair? Sure. But he's never going to be anyone's first thought for a premiere posting, and he seems to be openly aware of that. I see that but that still brings up 20th century human situations to a future setting. My academic and work background is HR related(Industrial/Organizational Psychology). To me, seeing someone like Shaw in a position of power, tells me we haven't progressed at all. To me that's the same as Raffi's drug addiction, the trans/LGBTQ topics that both Picard and Discovery touch upon. Hundreds of years in the future and we're still struggling with this stuff? We sure might be....but then that show is The Expanse. Not Star Trek, you know? I think that would have been better received if maybe he had been the Chief Engineer of that starship...which seems like where he was most comfortable anyway. It's an important position given his abilities but command is out of his grasp given his trauma and/or acerbic personality. 'Captain', to me, is such a streeeeeetch. Maybe there was a throwaway line somewhere in there about how desperate Starfleet was to promote people after Wolf 359, the Dominion War, etc.... decimated their ranks. If so, I missed it. I think there's more of an implied understanding that this is case. Perhaps better would have been an ep in any series fleshing that out more. There really is a story there given that situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Apr 29, 2023 19:09:40 GMT
Shaw seems like a REALLY middle management guy. Toxic middle management that this world is also full of, but middle management all the same. Give him a workhorse ship to chair? Sure. But he's never going to be anyone's first thought for a premiere posting, and he seems to be openly aware of that. I see that but that still brings up 20th century human situations to a future setting. My academic and work background is HR related(Industrial/Organizational Psychology). To me, seeing someone like Shaw in a position of power, tells me we haven't progressed at all. To me that's the same as Raffi's drug addiction, the trans/LGBTQ topics that both Picard and Discovery touch upon. Hundreds of years in the future and we're still struggling with this stuff? We sure might be....but then that show is The Expanse. Not Star Trek, you know? I think that would have been better received if maybe he had been the Chief Engineer of that starship...which seems like where he was most comfortable anyway. It's an important position given his abilities but command is out of his grasp given his trauma and/or acerbic personality. 'Captain', to me, is such a streeeeeetch. Maybe there was a throwaway line somewhere in there about how desperate Starfleet was to promote people after Wolf 359, the Dominion War, etc.... decimated their ranks. If so, I missed it. I think there's more of an implied understanding that this is case. Perhaps better would have been an ep in any series fleshing that out more. There really is a story there given that situation. Well, Star Trek has always held itself to "now" so that it could contrast that to the future. And I've never believed that the place ever was some pure Utopia, so some of these things will survive and hang on because some of this is just human nature, and human nature simply isn't going to be undone in 400 years because we learn how to process our own excrement into food and boots. And there's totally a story there about a Starfleet's pyric victory over the Borg that left it so hollowed out that a LOT of compromises had to be made. |
|
|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on Apr 30, 2023 3:52:07 GMT
I think of "Queerbating" everytime a show ADVERTISES that they have LGBTQ+ character s. Its literally 'Hey we're progressive because we got gay characters, and we're the first"...also that kills me. If I were a LGBTQ+ person (unfortunately, Im not), i think i would feel myself uncomfortably patronized...if im using the term correctly. Also, character wise, i only see 2 straight white guys...if you're talking about the tng cast. But yeah all are straight... except Data... he's just fully functional  |
|
|
|
Post by scenario on Apr 30, 2023 4:35:48 GMT
I think of "Queerbating" everytime a show ADVERTISES that they have LGBTQ+ character s. Its literally 'Hey we're progressive because we got gay characters, and we're the first"...also that kills me. If I were a LGBTQ+ person (unfortunately, Im not), i think i would feel myself uncomfortably patronized...if im using the term correctly. Also, character wise, i only see 2 straight white guys...if you're talking about the tng cast. But yeah all are straight... except Data... he's just fully functional That's an interesting thought about Data. There really is no reason he has to be straight. If he's trying to understand the human experience why would he restrict himself to being straight if the situation ever came up. |
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on Apr 30, 2023 18:19:30 GMT
I think of "Queerbating" everytime a show ADVERTISES that they have LGBTQ+ character s. Its literally 'Hey we're progressive because we got gay characters, and we're the first"...also that kills me. If I were a LGBTQ+ person (unfortunately, Im not), i think i would feel myself uncomfortably patronized...if im using the term correctly. On a similar vein, China calls "pretty vase" to the typical inclusion of a Chinese character for purposes of marketing to China, especially some throw away beautiful girl like in Pacific Rim: Uprising and Kong. Interestingly, same actress. The job is to look pretty but not add anything of value to the story. |
|
|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on Apr 30, 2023 20:35:51 GMT
I think of "Queerbating" everytime a show ADVERTISES that they have LGBTQ+ character s. Its literally 'Hey we're progressive because we got gay characters, and we're the first"...also that kills me. If I were a LGBTQ+ person (unfortunately, Im not), i think i would feel myself uncomfortably patronized...if im using the term correctly. On a similar vein, China calls "pretty vase" to the typical inclusion of a Chinese character for purposes of marketing to China, especially some throw away beautiful girl like in Pacific Rim: Uprising and Kong. Interestingly, same actress. The job is to look pretty but not add anything of value to the story. Yeah, I find that sort of thing annoying too. It was ok back when you were just trying to get any minority person on the screen, but we're past that.(its time to break more boundaries) Also, I hate catering to f'ing China. Got to appease that authoritarian regime for more money. Hence the unrealistic story of the Red Dawn remake...also I'm sorry N. Korea invades America they're f'ed before they set foothold. Too many trigger happy rednecks around- and there i go completely off subject... Also... Nepotism in starfleet.... |
|
|
|
Post by MrPicard on May 2, 2023 10:29:07 GMT
Given its history, Trek should be the LAST franchise that pats itself on the back for having LGBT+ characters. They should be ashamed that it took them this LONG.
And they're already walking backwards. In three entire seasons, PIC didn't manage to have even ONE gay dude. All it did was queerbait the Picard/Q fandom with endless promotion about the two and the "love" they have for each other (Goldsman went on and on about this in pre-season interviews) and then they didn't even manage to get Q to say "I love you" to Jean-Luc. If Q had presented himself as a woman, they would have had the whole shebang, with "I love you" and a kiss and whatnot. But heaven forbid a dude tells another dude he loves him. Not to mention the fact that they shared like two major scenes in the entire season. There was literally nothing else. But yeah sure, dear Akiva Goldsman, go on about how they love each other and how you discussed "ALL possiblities" in the writers' room. And clearly decided to chicken out for whatever reason. It's nice that things were at least discussed. What a massive step forward. Trek can really be proud of itself. /sarcasm
And in the next season they did what was basically the same thing with Seven and Raffi - queerbaiting the Saffi shipper audience by teasing scenes and a "satisfying arc" and whatnot, and what happened? Exactly nothing. They were just there, maybe they're a couple, maybe not, who cares, oh, let's make way for the zillionth Picard/Crusher "will they won't they are they together now or not we just don't know but we sure as hell are going to tease things" scene because we clearly need more of THAT, but "omg, nobody has time for romance". More like "nobody has time for m/m or f/f romance".
I guess the bottom line for me as a gay dude is if your only shots at representation consist of "chickening out of having a dude telling another dude that he loves him despite saying so in pretty much every behind the scenes interview prior to the season" and "who cares about the f/f relationship we introduced, we need more screentime for the hetero couples and their nonsense, we're just gonna claim there was no time for romance"... then don't bother at all. And stop the queerbaiting in interviews when you KNOW you're not gonna follow through with what you're announcing at all. Stop telling queer fans that things will happen and then nothing happens at all. Stop claiming you are all for representation and then you do nothing of ANY substance to support your claims.
Add this entire disaster with PIC and representation to the list of why Trek should not be proud but more like ASHAMED of itself for its way of tackling queer representation. And no, awkwardly shoehorning everything into Discovery so that they can claim "we DO have a show with queer characters" won't cut it. (Not to mention that they're awful at it there as well more often than not... "bury your gays" trope, anyone?)
|
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on May 2, 2023 16:34:42 GMT
Given its history, Trek should be the LAST franchise that pats itself on the back for having LGBT+ characters. They should be ashamed that it took them this LONG. And they're already walking backwards. In three entire seasons, PIC didn't manage to have even ONE gay dude. All it did was queerbait the Picard/Q fandom with endless promotion about the two and the "love" they have for each other (Goldsman went on and on about this in pre-season interviews) and then they didn't even manage to get Q to say "I love you" to Jean-Luc. If Q had presented himself as a woman, they would have had the whole shebang, with "I love you" and a kiss and whatnot. But heaven forbid a dude tells another dude he loves him. Not to mention the fact that they shared like two major scenes in the entire season. There was literally nothing else. But yeah sure, dear Akiva Goldsman, go on about how they love each other and how you discussed "ALL possiblities" in the writers' room. And clearly decided to chicken out for whatever reason. It's nice that things were at least discussed. What a massive step forward. Trek can really be proud of itself. /sarcasm And in the next season they did what was basically the same thing with Seven and Raffi - queerbaiting the Saffi shipper audience by teasing scenes and a "satisfying arc" and whatnot, and what happened? Exactly nothing. They were just there, maybe they're a couple, maybe not, who cares, oh, let's make way for the zillionth Picard/Crusher "will they won't they are they together now or not we just don't know but we sure as hell are going to tease things" scene because we clearly need more of THAT, but "omg, nobody has time for romance". More like "nobody has time for m/m or f/f romance". I guess the bottom line for me as a gay dude is if your only shots at representation consist of "chickening out of having a dude telling another dude that he loves him despite saying so in pretty much every behind the scenes interview prior to the season" and "who cares about the f/f relationship we introduced, we need more screentime for the hetero couples and their nonsense, we're just gonna claim there was no time for romance"... then don't bother at all. And stop the queerbaiting in interviews when you KNOW you're not gonna follow through with what you're announcing at all. Stop telling queer fans that things will happen and then nothing happens at all. Stop claiming you are all for representation and then you do nothing of ANY substance to support your claims. Add this entire disaster with PIC and representation to the list of why Trek should not be proud but more like ASHAMED of itself for its way of tackling queer representation. And no, awkwardly shoehorning everything into Discovery so that they can claim "we DO have a show with queer characters" won't cut it. (Not to mention that they're awful at it there as well more often than not... "bury your gays" trope, anyone?) I for one would NOT have wanted to see a Picard/Q relationship. Super distasteful. That would be the same as if a human fell in love with a chicken. A species like Q are way far advanced. The only 'love' angle I could see would be like what a human has for their pet. Equals? No way. TPTB are tripping on acid for saying off the cuff remarks like that and fans are off their rockers to have wanted to see that to even latch on their words expecting something like that. I do get the 'zillionth' time for the Picard/Crusher relationcrash. No, they didn't do that well in any way but the moment that TPTB decided to go on a nostalgia trip it was inevitable that this was going to come up. I do agree with you that they should stop messaging something and then not deliver. That is awful. I don't understand what it is they feel they gain by saying they're gonna do something and then not. It eventually pisses off a segment of fans. "we DO have a show with queer characters"That's exactly how I see Discovery. It's the LGBTQ+ millenial(?) show. It basically lives in its own universe and you don't have to necessarily watch any other Star Trek shows to get what's happening. Relatively self contained for that community. I've watched it and I think if I was LGBTQ+ of a certain age then maybe I might be a diehard fan because I see myself represented. Stepping back a bit, I'm looking at these Star Trek shows the same way that car companies have their models: a sporty model, a family model, a young professional model, add now a hybrid one, etc.... To your point, it gives the illusion of inclusivity when I see it as everyone gets their own room....and stays there. Well, I guess that's something if I've never had a room to begin with. (Not to mention that they're awful at it there as well more often than not... "bury your gays" trope, anyone?)
I would say that's the usual for any romantic relationship in Trek. Star Trek just simply does not do relationships well regardless of pairing combination. I would just prefer that they stay out of it and focus on actual scifi storytelling than getting what we've gotten. If I want romantic relationships then there are plenty of soap operas around. Interestingly though, the best model of a relationship I've seen so far has been in STD with Stamets and Culber at least in the beginning. |
|
|
|
Post by scenario on May 2, 2023 16:42:56 GMT
I didn't expect much LGBT+ representation from Picard beyond a token. Especially season 3. What they did was worse. Briefly introduce a new gay couple but only really show them as friends without explicitly showing it by their actions. Then break them up off screen and forgetting it ever happened.
Teasing the fans and then doing nothing is not a way to keep a fanbase enthusiastic about the show.
Star Trek rarely has couples of any kind and Picard is so full of meaningless filler that they didn't have room to develop a new relationship but they didn't even attempt to pay lip service to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrPicard on May 2, 2023 17:24:23 GMT
Oh, I didn't expect a RELATIONSHIP between Jean-Luc and Q. I simply wanted for Q to tell him that he loves him. What KIND of love, that's open to interpretation. But it's clear that he cares for Jean-Luc. So why not say it? The producers AND the actors kept banging on about it in every single interview. It was said literally everywhere... except actually on screen. They found the most wonderful words to tiptoe around it. Nicely done. Not.
I sorta do like Culber and Stamets and I appreciate that they have this kind of relationship on a Trek series but I don't see why they're expecting to be celebrated for it. It was LONG overdue. I'm NOT going to kiss their feet for doing the absolute minimum that other franchises did a long time ago already. Sorry but not sorry. lol
As for Seven and Raffi - this is just what certain parts of the fandom argued from the beginning. That the relationship came out of nowhere just to be able to say "oh yeah we have lesbians on our show now" and that it went nowhere and that this is why it wasn't put into any kind of spotlight anymore in the third season. Great job, Matalas. Not.
As a whole, it's clear who PIC's season 3 was written for. Definitely not LGBT+ fans. It was written for a very specific target audience - Berman Trek's audience. The one Rick Berman always catered his Star Trek to. And it worked, given the enthusiastic reactions from that very audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on May 2, 2023 18:13:44 GMT
As a whole, it's clear who PIC's season 3 was written for. Definitely not LGBT+ fans. It was written for a very specific target audience - Berman Trek's audience. The one Rick Berman always catered his Star Trek to. And it worked, given the enthusiastic reactions from that very audience. I don't know who it was targeted at but it sure wasn't for me. I'm assuming by 'Rick Berman fans' you mean hetero conservative or something like that? I haven't heard the term or know that there were specific fans of his within Trek. Or else the joke went way over my head. I ask because I have very progressive friends, gay friends too, that ADORED this last season of Picard. I'm just flabbergasted. I think the love for this season goes beyond something like that. It's dopamine hits. |
|
|
|
Post by scenario on May 2, 2023 19:04:19 GMT
Oh, I didn't expect a RELATIONSHIP between Jean-Luc and Q. I simply wanted for Q to tell him that he loves him. What KIND of love, that's open to interpretation. But it's clear that he cares for Jean-Luc. So why not say it? The producers AND the actors kept banging on about it in every single interview. It was said literally everywhere... except actually on screen. They found the most wonderful words to tiptoe around it. Nicely done. Not. I sorta do like Culber and Stamets and I appreciate that they have this kind of relationship on a Trek series but I don't see why they're expecting to be celebrated for it. It was LONG overdue. I'm NOT going to kiss their feet for doing the absolute minimum that other franchises did a long time ago already. Sorry but not sorry. lol As for Seven and Raffi - this is just what certain parts of the fandom argued from the beginning. That the relationship came out of nowhere just to be able to say "oh yeah we have lesbians on our show now" and that it went nowhere and that this is why it wasn't put into any kind of spotlight anymore in the third season. Great job, Matalas. Not. As a whole, it's clear who PIC's season 3 was written for. Definitely not LGBT+ fans. It was written for a very specific target audience - Berman Trek's audience. The one Rick Berman always catered his Star Trek to. And it worked, given the enthusiastic reactions from that very audience. The relationship I was talking about was seven/Raf. They could have had a few scenes there but didn't bother. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on May 2, 2023 21:07:24 GMT
Oh, I didn't expect a RELATIONSHIP between Jean-Luc and Q. I simply wanted for Q to tell him that he loves him. What KIND of love, that's open to interpretation. But it's clear that he cares for Jean-Luc. So why not say it? The producers AND the actors kept banging on about it in every single interview. It was said literally everywhere... except actually on screen. They found the most wonderful words to tiptoe around it. Nicely done. Not. I sorta do like Culber and Stamets and I appreciate that they have this kind of relationship on a Trek series but I don't see why they're expecting to be celebrated for it. It was LONG overdue. I'm NOT going to kiss their feet for doing the absolute minimum that other franchises did a long time ago already. Sorry but not sorry. lol As for Seven and Raffi - this is just what certain parts of the fandom argued from the beginning. That the relationship came out of nowhere just to be able to say "oh yeah we have lesbians on our show now" and that it went nowhere and that this is why it wasn't put into any kind of spotlight anymore in the third season. Great job, Matalas. Not. As a whole, it's clear who PIC's season 3 was written for. Definitely not LGBT+ fans. It was written for a very specific target audience - Berman Trek's audience. The one Rick Berman always catered his Star Trek to. And it worked, given the enthusiastic reactions from that very audience. Hell, with the S2 finale with the two of them at his house just before Q "dies" (wink) I was actually anticipating Q bending down and kissing him on the head. It would have been perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by Garak Nephew on May 2, 2023 21:46:12 GMT
I never bought into the whole Q/Picard figurative love affair, like something repressed that never is brought to the surface. It is hard to believe that something like love might be invoke when talking about Q/Picard relationship. It is like a gay fantasy that somehow found it's way into Trek standard mythos. But it is flaw. Q BROUGHT PICARD (AND HUMANITY) TO THE BORG!!!!!!! So, what was suppose Picard to do after millions and millions of death bodies pilling everywhere? "Hey, baby, everything is forgiven, come to papa"? Nah, no way. If there is some sort of "romantic" feeling FROM Q to Picard, they should be presented as something sick, a cosmic pathology or some Lovecraftian shit explanation. And since this scifi we are talking here it could be an opportunity to speculate about xenopsychology or something. What is "love" for an immortal being able to traverse the space-time continuum at will? If the difference between life and death is literally a flick of your fingers away, what the word "care" means to you? I am not being flippant. It is an opportunity to really put your brain to work. You give this subject to intense writers like Ursula Le Guin or Jeff VanderMeer and they would switch your mind on. How do we represent what is truly Other? In my opinion, Q and Picard have of course a relationship, but calling it love is stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on May 2, 2023 22:47:58 GMT
I never bought into the whole Q/Picard figurative love affair, like something repressed that never is brought to the surface. It is hard to believe that something like love might be invoke when talking about Q/Picard relationship. It is like a gay fantasy that somehow found it's way into Trek standard mythos. But it is flaw. Q BROUGHT PICARD (AND HUMANITY) TO THE BORG!!!!!!! So, what was suppose Picard to do after millions and millions of death bodies pilling everywhere? "Hey, baby, everything is forgiven, come to papa"? Nah, no way. If there is some sort of "romantic" filling FROM Q to Picard, they should be presented as something sick, a cosmic pathology or some Lovecraftian shit explanation. And since this scifi we are talking here it could be an opportunity to speculate about xenopsychology or something. What is "love" for an immortal being able to traverse the space-time continuum at will? If the difference between life and death is literally a flick of your fingers away, what the word "care" means to you? I am not being flippant. It is an opportunity to really put your brain to work. You give this subject to intense writers like Ursula Le Guin or Jeff VanderMeer and they would switch your mind on. How do we represent what is truly Other? In my opinion, Q and Picard have of course a relationship, but calling it love is stretch. Agreed. It doesn't make any sense that Q had any level of care, concern, love for Picard. At best Picard is a pet...and yes, that's love for sure but not in anyway shape or form equal. This series/season would have been a great opportunity to explore what exactly was Q's obsession with Picard/humanity. They dropped that ball big time. Hell, Q was barely in the damn season anyway. Lots of opportunity here but alas....we're talking about Trek. Real scifi is no longer part of this franchise sadly. I also see that gay fantasy imposition in DS9's Garak and Bashir or Bashir and O'Brian to the point that suggesting otherwise in some groups brands you a mouthbreather or such other derogatory term. I get it. There are plenty of LGBTQ+ Star Trek fans that have never had a character to latch on/project. So they made it up with these other characters. I'm glad that Discovery is there for that but to me that feels more like pandering than representation. And it's soooo late to jump into the 'inclusion' bandwagon. Like really lame. If only the damn shows were good quality. |
|
|
|
Post by scenario on May 3, 2023 0:48:09 GMT
I never bought into the whole Q/Picard figurative love affair, like something repressed that never is brought to the surface. It is hard to believe that something like love might be invoke when talking about Q/Picard relationship. It is like a gay fantasy that somehow found it's way into Trek standard mythos. But it is flaw. Q BROUGHT PICARD (AND HUMANITY) TO THE BORG!!!!!!! So, what was suppose Picard to do after millions and millions of death bodies pilling everywhere? "Hey, baby, everything is forgiven, come to papa"? Nah, no way. If there is some sort of "romantic" filling FROM Q to Picard, they should be presented as something sick, a cosmic pathology or some Lovecraftian shit explanation. And since this scifi we are talking here it could be an opportunity to speculate about xenopsychology or something. What is "love" for an immortal being able to traverse the space-time continuum at will? If the difference between life and death is literally a flick of your fingers away, what the word "care" means to you? I am not being flippant. It is an opportunity to really put your brain to work. You give this subject to intense writers like Ursula Le Guin or Jeff VanderMeer and they would switch your mind on. How do we represent what is truly Other? In my opinion, Q and Picard have of course a relationship, but calling it love is stretch. Agreed. It doesn't make any sense that Q had any level of care, concern, love for Picard. At best Picard is a pet...and yes, that's love for sure but not in anyway shape or form equal. This series/season would have been a great opportunity to explore what exactly was Q's obsession with Picard/humanity. They dropped that ball big time. Hell, Q was barely in the damn season anyway. Lots of opportunity here but alas....we're talking about Trek. Real scifi is no longer part of this franchise sadly. I also see that gay fantasy imposition in DS9's Garak and Bashir or Bashir and O'Brian to the point that suggesting otherwise in some groups brands you a mouthbreather or such other derogatory term. I get it. There are plenty of LGBTQ+ Star Trek fans that have never had a character to latch on/project. So they made it up with these other characters. I'm glad that Discovery is there for that but to me that feels more like pandering than representation. And it's soooo late to jump into the 'inclusion' bandwagon. Like really lame. If only the damn shows were good quality. Yes and no. There can be gay overtones to a bromance/frenemies. People can love each other in a non sexual manner. I can see Q loving Picard as something his species has lost. He let the Borg know about the Federation but in a way it was a good thing. One cube attacked when the Federation was strong. If it had followed the normal path 10 or 20 or 30 cubes may have attacked a century later. Q isn't all that concerned about individuals other than Picard. If hundreds of thousands die now to save trillions later its worth it. The problem with really good SF examining truly alien aliens is that the reader is is left almost but not quite understanding them. That's tough to do without losing half your audience on a tv show. I can see Q loving Picard as the youth he has lost. I can see Picard understanding that Q cares for him but chaos is in his nature and ants get killed when elephants fight. |
|
|
|
Post by Garak Nephew on May 3, 2023 1:28:34 GMT
The problem with really good SF examining truly alien aliens is that the reader is is left almost but not quite understanding them. That's tough to do without losing half your audience on a tv show. This a very good point. At least it could be an objective and creators should attempt it. We can see a very light version on DSC Ten-C episodes; TNG has a couple with "Darmok" coming to the mind right away; Voyager has it share of weirdness when it comes to representation of "alienity" of aliens, but those are just very tangential to the stories being told and not really satisfy. One of my favorite science fiction movies of the last 15 years is "The Arrival", the aliens remain SO alien and yet are constantly influencing the events; and the language is an odd technology that we have inside of us. Weird, great movie. I think Q is most of all a missed opportunity, an opportunity for Trek to take the high road of speculation that had been so fruitful in science fiction. They spent to much time making Q just like an eccentric, amoral human that just happen to all-powerful. Q is a cliché. |
|
|
|
Post by MrPicard on May 3, 2023 5:47:06 GMT
Yes, by Berman Trek fans I meant fans who have hated all the new Trek shows but are suddenly there for PIC's season 3 because it plays the same tune Berman Trek played by trying not to offend anyone too much and by not taking any risks and by "not shoving things down our throats". Bascially yeah, your tyical cishet Youtube dude. It's no surprise that so many of those oh-so-critical cishet Youtube dudes are in love with PIC's season 3.
But of course it goes beyond just them. It's the nostalgia overdose the season had. It's oozing out of every corner of the show. "LOOK TNG REFERENCES", "OMG A NOD TO DS9"... etc. It's dopamine indeed. It's nostalgia galore. I'm immune to it because I didn't grow up with TNG but those who did seem to have fallen for it. (Not all of them of course but it does seem to be a substantial numnber of fans.)
And I'm sorry to say but Picard/Q is not just a gay fantasy - Sir Patrick himself said that he always thought Q was gay and that Q had a way of looking at Jean-Luc that was "provocative". It was always right there in the performances, and whether or not it was meant to be anything more, gay people DO pick these vibes up (and not just gay people - the majority of Picard/Q consists of straight women). And the ones in charge of PIC knew this. That's what's so annoying. They KNEW that Picard/Q is one of the major TNG pairings. They knew how to queerbait the audience with it, and they did it. THAT is what I'm so annoyed about, not the nature of the Picard/Q relationship, which is of course up for debate, some say it's romantic, others say it's mentor and student, others say it's god and ameba, etc etc, it has always had a zillion interpretations; that's not the issue. I'm more annoyed at the COVERAGE of the season, what with the Q hype and all and he was barely even in the episodes - if the producers hadn't baited things at every possible turn in interviews by bringing in how much Q "loves" Jean-Luc, I would not be this annoyed by what they chose to do. It WAS more than TNG ever dared, that much is true, I can't see TNG Q lovingly taking Jean-Luc's face into his hands and almost kissing his forehead. But that's my point - they did SOME more but they did not live up to the things they claimed in their interviews. If they had kept quiet I probably would have liked what they did a lot more, but given how they yelled about the "love" in their interviews and then on the actual show they went out of their way to avoid having Q say "I love you" (in whichever way he might have meant this)... THAT is what I'm angry about.
It's a pattern with PIC tho - if you want the full story of what's going on you have to read showrunner interviews. Elnor didn't die because he wasn't aboard the ship that blew up. How do we know this? Matalas said it on Twitter. It's all over the place, and has been ever since season 1 that showrunners have had to explain plot points and answer questions all over the place that the show left unanswered that could have been resolved by simply having one small line of dialog. And that doesn't make the show look good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Garak Nephew on May 3, 2023 13:41:34 GMT
I see. I was approaching the issue from a different angle -on Trek Q lacks coherence, a godlike, Loki-like trickster, all powerful, seems more suitable for fairy tales than to science fiction; he is definitively not boyfriend material if for him you are little more than a toy; I always struggled with accepting it (or him, or they), but it grew on me for the potential it shows to address relations between physics and metaphysics even though I don't think TNG writers made the best of it- but now that Mr. Picard brought it back to my attention it is true that the performance angle is right there in front of us. Is right there through ALL of TNG run. De Lancie plays Q always flirtatious, even coquettish, and I understand the feeling of betrayal some queer fans might experienced when "Picard" handed them a family version of Q, tame down and dull.
|
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on May 3, 2023 17:33:37 GMT
But of course it goes beyond just them. It's the nostalgia overdose the season had. It's oozing out of every corner of the show. "LOOK TNG REFERENCES", "OMG A NOD TO DS9"... etc. It's dopamine indeed. It's nostalgia galore. I'm immune to it because I didn't grow up with TNG but those who did seem to have fallen for it. (Not all of them of course but it does seem to be a substantial numnber of fans.) I grew up with TNG(well, I was in college) and the references nauseated me. It felt deliberate in the sense of distracting away from a poor story. Same for Discovery. But I do know friends who were adults for TNG and ate it up. And not hetero boring mayonnaise folks either. "I'm more annoyed at the COVERAGE of the season, what with the Q hype and all and he was barely even in the episodes - if the producers hadn't baited things at every possible turn in interviews by bringing in how much Q "loves" Jean-Luc, I would not be this annoyed by what they chose to do".I don't watch any of this stuff(coverage) so I don't know what any of these people say. However whether it is Matalas or Stewart saying stuff...well...that's it basically. They are saying stuff and none of it has anything to do with the show. Back in the 90's, Stewart was on one of those late nigh shows(maybe Leno) promoting one of the Trek movies. He mentioned having a plane ride with Carrie Fischer. He then said they talked about a multi-universe bending romance between Picard, Leia, and Solo. Was he joking? I don't know. If he was it was a lame attempt. Should I have taken him seriously? He did seem to be quite earnest about it. Idk. Again they say stuff. There's so much media and they feel the need to fill it up spitballing/making shit up. And millions are glued to it. I hope this doesn't come out as mean but it does seem like your expectations were elevated for a certain outcome. I don't blame you. The people behind the scenes seem to have been playing with certain segments of their audience in an unkind manner. Whether they realized what they were doing or not is another issue. "It's a pattern with PIC tho - if you want the full story of what's going on you have to read showrunner interviews".
If you have to have a debrief to cover the story then to me that shows an inherent problem with the show itself. And it shows. These are poorly told stories. The same for the SW prequels. Yes, the Clone Wars animated series fleshed out more of the story. But it doesn't make the prequels any better. We're watching the same thing now for the sequels with the various SW series. "And I'm sorry to say but Picard/Q is not just a gay fantasy - Sir Patrick himself said that he always thought Q was gay and that Q had a way of looking at Jean-Luc that was "provocative". It was always right there in the performances, and whether or not it was meant to be anything more, gay people DO pick these vibes up (and not just gay people - the majority of Picard/Q consists of straight women)".
As you say elsewhere, people can read into whatever they want to get what they want. I didn't see that. Same with Bashir and O'Brien or Garak. I remember rewatching all of DS9 'cause I was starting to read about Bashir's gay relationships and I'm thinking "what show are we watching"? If people want to read into two characters of the same sex having breakfast every morning as gay..... It's such a far reach to me but I get the longing for it. That doesn't make it real regardless of what people involved say about it. It's not on screen. Of course, I can interpret someone's look as loving gaze(especially if I was primed by a producer who said that there might be more to it than what we just see). That's like Rowling saying Dumbledore was gay. There was nothing in the books or movies to indicate any of that nor did any romantic aspect of that character play a part in the Harry Potter story. It does now in the 'prequel' movies. Same with JJ Trek's Sulu. Was he gay? All I saw is that he greeted another man and presumable that man's daughter. How does that make him gay? Could have been a brother, cousin, friend, etc...but somehow because the previous actor is gay in real life the character is as well? In the end I have to go with what I see as the official product; what's on screen. Not what the producer said, or what ended on the cutting room floor, nor what an actor thinks about something. If anything, and we seem to agree with this, it's queerbaiting; playing something really vaguely so that some people latch on to the product. It's manipulative and I understand your frustration and disappointment. |
|
|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on May 4, 2023 16:49:16 GMT
Same with JJ Trek's Sulu. Was he gay? All I saw is that he greeted another man and presumable that man's daughter. How does that make him gay? Could have been a brother, cousin, friend, etc...but somehow because the previous actor is gay in real life the character is as well? George Takei took offense to that. He said the character he played was a straight man. In all honesty I think he took offense to "Oh, You're gay, so the characters you play must be gay too." as if a Gay actor couldn't play a straight character but a straight actor can play a gay character.. |
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on May 4, 2023 17:00:55 GMT
Same with JJ Trek's Sulu. Was he gay? All I saw is that he greeted another man and presumable that man's daughter. How does that make him gay? Could have been a brother, cousin, friend, etc...but somehow because the previous actor is gay in real life the character is as well? George Takei took offense to that. He said the character he played was a straight man. In all honesty I think he took offense to "Oh, You're gay, so the characters you play must be gay too." as if a Gay actor couldn't play a straight character but a straight actor can play a gay character.. Yep....of course this opens up a whole can of worms as to what a gay actor should act like playing a straight character and vice versa without entering into caricatures like Zorro The Gay Blade, a movie I loved as a kid and now realize how stereotypical it was. Personally, I don't think Takei played Sulu as 'straight'. He was just Sulu the guy sitting at the navigator station. Whether the character was straight, gay, bi, whatever is totally irrelevant to Star Trek. Granted, most of these characters are quite superficial to begin with. |
|
I am so sorry...