• gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    my problems with nuTrek are almost exclusively with DSC. It’s the terrible writing, the retconning, and the over-the-top acting. but, specifically, with how they’ve handled LGBTQ+ characters-- horribly, imo.

    Stamets and Culber

    These two are often the target of being brutally treated, aka, the Bury Your Gays trope. Death/near-death constantly surround them, and it’s often tied to some function of their sexuality and/or relationship as gay men. Rarely are they seen as just crewmembers or Starfleet officers aside from them being gay, and i can’t help but see this as the showrunners and the writers, lacking all subtlety and nuance, saying, “LOOK AT HOW WE HAVE GAY CHARACTERS NOW!! LOOOOOOOKKKKK!!!” They’re props, objects to make Trek look good, and i don’t care for LGBTQ+ people being used that way.

    In the shiny, bright future of Trek, nobody would care. It would be so normalized that nobody would notice and nobody would think differently of anyone for being gay, and having it constantly pointed out would be weird. So, when it’s done on the show, over and over, it’s weird and discordant, and out-of-character-- just like in the TOS episode when Lincoln called Uhura a racist term she didn’t comprehend because, as Kirk pointed out, it’s just not something people notice or think about anymore in the 23rd century.

    Grey and Adira

    I find this example more egregious for the same reasons. While i celebrate trans and enby inclusion in Trek (finally), what i find especially troublesome here is the tone-deaf and haphazard manner in which it was handled. First, again with the Bury Your Gays bs. We get this lovely character Grey only for them to get killed and only to exist henceforth as an f’ing ghost? That’s the only dignity this character gets? As a ghost?? And Adira doesn’t get the dignity of even existing without having to declare themselves and struggling to fit in as well. I mean, i understand trying to make the character relatable to a contemporary audience, but the whole point of Trek is to, again, show a brighter better future where all people are already accepted for who and what they are, where such struggles for tolerance and acceptance are well behind us. I shouldn’t be watching Adira struggle-- I should be watching them be able to confidently walk into the Engineering compartment knowing that nobody will judge them because, in the 23rd century, those bigotries and prejudices no longer exist.

    But DSC betrayed what decades of Trek had taught us before about tolerance in the 23rd and 24th centuries and shit all over it by painting a picture of hostility, uncertainly, and doubt for LGBTQ+ people and how, apparently, we’re the target of a great deal of mysterious deaths and near-deaths. The future really isn’t too bright for us in the nuTrek future, and our struggles still abound 200 years hence.

    There is never or rarely any positive aspect of the LGBTQ+ characters attributes being celebrated. It’s always some weakness to be exploited as a plot point, highlighted as something that will make them miserable, sad, and/or alone, something that sets them apart and makes them different. it’s always regarded as some type of survivorship. LGBTQ+ folx in Trek are not represented nor regarded as normal or regular people as they should be. They’re regarded as objects of pity, cudgels for plot points, set pieces, and fucking ghosts, but never with the dignity and respect that any other crew member receives, and that’s just fucked up.

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 months ago

      And Adira doesn’t get the dignity of even existing without having to declare themselves and struggling to fit in as well.

      Contrast with Sisko, where him being black isn’t even mentioned until Season 6’s “Far Beyond the Stars,” or Jadzia’s bisexuality never being directly mentioned at all.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Exactly— Sisko only discussed his race in the context of comparing it to the unfairness of the past. It was never even noticed in the present— in fact, the only other time Sisko actually mentioned it was when discussing with Cassidy why he didn’t like going to Vic’s holosuite casino: because the 1960s-era representation was historically inaccurate of its representations of its attitudes towards people of color— in that the holosuite casino had no racism and, in reality, Vegas casinos were very racist at that time. He saw that as dishonest whitewashing of history. Cassidy countered that he should try to enjoy it, not as an account of history (as it was never intended to be), but as a representation of how things should have been.

        And the message? Don’t forget the past, but also don’t let it get in the way of enjoying the present.

        And THIS is how to use nuance to combine fantastic writing and acting and directing to communicate complex social concepts and to properly contextualize them in a utopian, equitable democratic socialist future referring to and being viewed by a contemporaneous audience in the 20th/21st century.

        The writing directing and acting in discovery looks middle school improv by comparison. 

        • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          and, in reality, Vegas casinos were very racist at that time.

          Not as much as you would think. The Rat Pack used their popularity to strong-arm the Vegas casinos into ending segregationist policies. The city was actually fully desegregated in 1960, in large part thanks to the Rat Pack’s actions. Vic seems to be a fictional member of the group invented by Felix, so it tracks that his personal establishment would be one of the most welcoming.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Jadzia’s bisexuality never being directly mentioned at all.

        An interesting example of being more inclusive because they wanted to avoid controversy more than because they just wanted to be inclusive.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      What bothers me most about what the writers did with Adira is have them get adopted by Stamets and Culber. It sort of felt like “let’s keep all the queer people together” as if they needed their own special section of the ship.

      • Kelly Aster 🏳️‍⚧️@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Argh I know! It’s like, they couldn’t think of something more original? Gotta keep them all in the same space? People who complain about this show’s “wokeness” specifically have obviously never seen it, because it’s strangely regressive in some ways.

    • Kelly Aster 🏳️‍⚧️@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The show’s use of the ‘bury your gays’ trope is so disappointing. It was so noticeable on first viewing, I remember thinking “why the hell are they killing them off?”

      Ok, so you said something that really got me thinking:

      And Adira doesn’t get the dignity of even existing without having to declare themselves and struggling to fit in as well.

      Yeah, thank you for saying this. I hadn’t thought about this before, but Adira not even existing is crazy ironic because queer folks everywhere right now are fighting just to exist…not just as a byproduct that accompanies coming out in the modern era (having to explain your identity can be exhausting), but in the context of severe oppression where it’s a crime to be queer or where laws are being changed to restrict queer rights. Take your pick of which state, or country, for that matter…queer erasure is happening in a lot of places.

      I wish I had enough faith in the writing team to believe this was intentional and meant to be an allegory, but nah. They were just tone deaf.

      They’re regarded as objects of pity, cudgels for plot points, set pieces, and fucking ghosts, but never with the dignity and respect that any other crew member receives, and that’s just fucked up.

      Thank you for saying this too. FFS, can’t we just have a gay character on screen without constantly having to O’Brien the poor dude? It is fucked up, it’s today’s version of making all your female characters victims of rape (poor Deana, how many times was she violated?). So incredibly fucked up

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I think what this speaks to is the concept of queer agency and what that means— and how the writers clearly don’t understand it or how to be aspirational about it. Today, it’s defined by what we don’t have and are fighting for, whereas, in the 23rd century it doesn’t exist because everyone is equal. Queer people aren’t regarded as different or unequal in any way, so be regarded as different is a completely foreign concept. Having to define agency - or the need for it - does not belong in this context.

        So, when you show these characters struggling with their identities, struggling to fit in because of them, and being defined first by them, it’s discordant with the setting, it’s discordant with Trek, and does a massive disservice to the characters themselves when, in what is supposed toy be a hopeful, utopian future where humanity is supposed to be far past such things, queer people are no better off than they are today because in a future where the concept of queer agency shouldn’t even have to exist anymore, it’s front and center whenever a queer character is on screen. Worse, when they end up suffering for it, over and over.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s the biggest problem with how Hollywood and modern identity politics in general handles “diversity”. Those aren’t people who are gay, they’re characters because they’re gay. Instead of being people, they’re a DEI category to check off and showcase.