• Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tbh I might have a unique way of processing fiction, because my brain seems to process it as, “I’m watching a future documentary” or “I’m watching future reality TV” or something. Like, these people have a camera crew or something following them around, so the camera crew is part of the act if that makes sense; so when the camera crew focuses on something, my brain interprets it as being important to the fictional future-history.

    As such, while I don’t remember anyone actually being upset about them being gay in-universe, the fact that the camera crew seemed to like focusing on them being intimate makes my brain say, “this must be important to 23rd century humans in some way”.

    Then again, I’m also not super into shows that feel like they spend too much time focusing on romantic relationships, so I might also be more critical that I should be as a result. If you’re gonna spend a bunch of time exploring a romantic relationship in a non-romance show, at least make it interesting. Maybe one of them is a cold-blooded lizardman and there’s some conflict about the temperature of the crew quarters or something.

    • Guy Fleegman@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s not a particularly unique perspective, many Trekkies choose to process Star Trek as “historical documents.” There’s a movie about it.

      What I don’t understand is why you’ve assigned this theoretical camera crew the intent of “get the camera on the gay dudes, stat” when “get the camera on the relationship between the two main characters” is a much simpler explanation. There are entire episodes dedicated to Odo & Kira, Paris & Torres or Trip & T’Pol relationship drama. Stamets & Culber screen time pales in comparison, and at least Stamets & Culber have some chemistry.

      • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not a huge fan of relationships in media to begin with (unless it’s somehow tied into the plot), so it’s possible I’m being more critical and skeptical than I should be. I’m not exactly cishet so I’m not sure that’s really it, but as someone else pointed out it’s still not super common for gay characters, especially male characters, to be shown as being romantically involved, which can be jarring when you’re not used to it. Dunno, it’s weird.

        That’s not a particularly unique perspective, many Trekkies choose to process Star Trek as “historical documents.” There’s a movie about it.

        That’s kinda interesting, do you remember what the movie is called? I might watch it at some point.

        • Guy Fleegman@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          but as someone else pointed out it’s still not super common for gay characters, especially male characters, to be shown as being romantically involved, which can be jarring when you’re not used to it. Dunno, it’s weird.

          Yep, many people still struggle with it. What do you think it would take to change this?

    • Snowcano@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      the fact that the camera crew seemed to like focusing on them being intimate makes my brain say, “this must be important to 23rd century humans in some way”.

      Might I also suggest that another possibility is that until very recently, there has been so little gay representation on TV that merely depicting it at all, as Discovery has done, can feel jarring to some.

      A friend of mine was complaining about the same thing back on Season 1, but I asked him if it had been a hetero couple shown brushing their teeth together or having a smooch would he have minded and he admitted probably not. We chalked it up to just not being used to seeing that with a gay couple on tv.

      Just a thought.

      • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, I guess it’s possible. When it comes to my gender and sexuality, I’d say, “it’s complicated” because I’m not cishet, it’s just… complicated. Additionally I don’t tend to enjoy romance in media all that much to begin with, so it’s possible that I’m being more critical than I should. It’s just that gay relationships in media don’t bother me, it’s more when it feels “in my face” that I start to question the motivations behind it.

        I guess the big thing is that if you’re happy with it, then cool! Something about it just felt off to me.

      • askryan@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Frankly, the scene that introduced Stamets and Culber together I think was intended to surprise the audience in a different way –– Stamets is a huge jerk the previous few episodes and set up as a semi-antagonist, and that bit shows him in a very different light, as the audience/Burnham starts to thaw on the Discovery crew.

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Meh, buffy casualised Willow & Tara existing as Queer a lot better than disc did…and that was a stride

        • Corgana@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m so confused reading this thread, what was less “casual” about the queer v straight characters in Discovery?