Flaming Hand

Editor's Note: This text has been extracted with permission of the author from trekmovie.com

Here is a link to the original article and discussion thread

For those who do not know, Mr Gerrold is a writer who has contributed to the Star Trek universe since the 1960's writing what is generally considered to be a beloved episode "The Trouble With Tribbles", amongst other contributions.

Mr Gerrold penned the original version of the episode "Blood And Fire" for the series "Star Trek: The Next Generation" but it was never used for reasons he describes much better than your editor can.

The episode was revamped for the fan production "Star Trek : Phase II", ( formerly "Star Trek: The New Voyages" )the first part of which was very recently released to the public.

A review of the episode on trekmovie.com precipitated a steam of comments, some vitriolic. This would appear to be because of a couple of openly gay characters in the story.

Much to your editor's delight, Mr Gerrold joined into the discussion. I was so impressed with what he had to say that I asked permission to reprint it here:

Please see the original article to read all comments in their original context.

258. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

re #116 [[ “Perhaps there will
be a non-gay edit.”]]

Over my dead body.

David Gerrold

259. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

Okay, I have not read all the
messages yet. There are far too many to read in one sitting. But I
want to take a moment to address several points.

First, in November of 1986, shortly
after TNG was announced, Gene (and I) attended a Star Trek convention
in Boston, In response to a fan’s question whether there would
be gay characters on the new series, Gene said yes, there would be.
He believed that Trek’s philosophy of inclusion demanded that
we include all members of the human family in the crew of the
Enterprise. He repeated this promise several times over the next few
years. (Why at promise was not kept is not germane to this
discussion.)

“Blood And Fire” was
originally written for TNG as an allegory about the *fear* of
disease. A line written for the episode which unfortunately did not
make it into the final edit has Kirk saying, “We will not throw
away half the human race because the other half is scared.”

The script for this episode was a
labor of love for Carlos Pedraza, James Cawley, and myself, with at
least three months of daily phone calls back and forth as we
discussed, debated, and occasionally argued about every line, tossed
ideas back and forth, and eventually came to realize that the real
drama of this story is the relationship between James T. Kirk and his
nephew, Peter.

Very early on, we realized that
times have changed greatly since 1987, when the script was written,
and that we had to be more honest and direct with the gay
relationship. We decided two key points — the first was that
gay relationships would be totally matter-of-fact in the Star Trek
universe, because every other diverse ethnicity and culture in the
Trek universe was taken for granted. Second, the best way to
demonstrate the depth of this relationship was for Peter to ask Alex
to marry him. (This was long before the CA supreme court made
same-sex marriage legal in CA, long before the Prop 8 battle. We are
very proud of the political resonance of this script because it’s
the kind of thing Gene would have loved.)

Generally, after a marriage
proposal, the two lovers hug and kiss. We discussed this too. We felt
that it was a necessary plot point — and besides, Peter is a
Kirk. That some people find the scene uncomfortable can be read many
ways. But we felt then, and I still feel the same way today, that
Peter and Alex deserved that moment together because of what we were
about to put them through and the audience needed to understand the
depth of that relationship.

On a more personal level, before we
went into production, I remember googling the web to see what various
fans had said about gay characters on Trek and one of the most
poignant remarks came from a gay teen who said, “I hate you,
Star Trek, for making me invisible.” So James and I (and
others) felt that it was long overdue to acknowledge the gay fans, as
well as the many gay people who had contributed to Trek, with a scene
that ended the invisibility.

261. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

continuing:

Now let me talk about the
production. We had only 14 days to shoot 96 pages of script. I spent
three weeks very carefully breaking down the script and setting out a
shooting schedule that would let us accomplish everything we needed.
We had to shoot 8 pages a day. We started as early as 8 in the
morning and often worked till midnight. The camera and sound crews
worked hardest of anybody, having to be there first in the morning,
on set all day long, and not being able to leave until they had
locked up all the equipment at the end. They continue to have my
undying respect and gratitude.

The very first day of the shoot was
with a reduced crew and we worked solely on the love scene. Both of
the actors arrived with their lines well-learned, with a great deal
of enthusiasm for the scene, and an incredible amount of patience as
we worked out the physical details. Personally, I wish we could have
shot the scene much later in the production schedule, but the first
day was the only day we would have a full day for that scene.

My concerns with the scene were
simple. I needed the audience to believe that these two characters
were in love. I needed the audience to accept this relationship,
because if this scene failed, much of the drama to follow wouldn’t
have any impact.

I was also very much aware that
Trek has a large and varied audience, including a lot of parents and
children. As a parent, I personally feel that I’d rather have
my son watching two human beings being affectionate with each other
rather than see two human beings beating the crap out of each other.
(My son is 24 now, and based on the evidence of his personal
maturity, I think he turned out okay.)

But back to the scene — we
knew going in that we were walking a tightrope, because we would be
dealing with a vast and diverse audience, with a lot of people
bringing a lot of different expectations to the episode. But after
all of the considerations were weighed and discussed — even on
the set, even during the shoot, even with some of the cast and
crewmembers who had their own reservations at the time (at least
until they saw the dailies) — after all that, we always came
back to something Gene Roddenberry used to tell the writers who came
in to pitch stories for TNG: “Tell me the story that you most
want and need to tell, the story that sticks in your craw, the story
that you can’t tell anywhere else. Tell me the story that you’d
die to tell.”

One last point on this. One of my
best friends in the Trek world was Bob Justman, a truly joyous man.
For the last twenty years, he kept telling me how much he regretted
that we never got to shoot “Blood And Fire” on TNG. I
knew he was sick this last year. It was my great hope we’d have
a cut of the episode finished in time for him to see it. Like Gene,
Bob believed that it was long past time for Trek to include gay
people on the Enterprise.
263. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

Okay, now that’s out of the
way, let me acknowledge the hard work and incredible contributions of
everyone involved in the production of “Blood And Fire.”

Carlos Pedraza did a great
translation of the original TNG script into a Phase II script. When
it was handed to me, I was delighted that he had so tuned into the
spirit of the original series. During my own polish of his draft, I
found it very easy (and a lot of fun) to revisit Kirk, Spock, and
McCoy in my mind. I could hear Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley speaking
each line on the page. DC Fontana reviewed the next-to-final draft
and made some additional notes and corrections. (To me, DC Fontana
will always be the final authority on what is Star Trek and what
isn’t.)

When we handed the script to the
Phase II actors, they made the characters their own, and before the
end of the third day of shooting, I was no longer hearing Shatner,
Nimoy, and Kelly, I was hearing Cawley, Tolpin, and … uh,
Kelley. They owned their characters totally, they were all a delight
to work with. (Special Kudos to John Kelley who is a marvelous
McCoy.)

Indeed, the entire cast were
remarkable, even down to the extras. The depth of passion,
enthusiasm, and professionalism throughout was astonishing; these
people outdid many so-called professional productions. Bobby Quinn
Rice and Evan Fowler as Peter and Alex gave remarkable performances.
Charles Root as Scotty was great fun. Kim Stinger as Uhura is tied
with Nichelle Nichols for the title of best Uhura ever and her on-set
jokes had me rolling on the floor. Andy Bray is such a great Chekov,
I’d have cast him in the new movie. I could list every single
member of the cast with the same affection and admiration.

Also special mentions go to Nick
Cook who played Hodel (named after Mike Hodel, a fixture of LA area
SF fandom for many many years) and Paul Siebert who scared hell out
of us on the bridge of the Copernicus. And also Meghan who did a
great Rand and Debbie who stepped in at the last moment to play Dr.
Fontana.

Our guest stars, Bill Blair and
Denise Crosby (who you will see in Part II) were also wonderful.
Bill’s role required him to get increasingly crazier and
crazier, so we let him go over the top for some old-fashioned scenery
chewing in the tradition of the original Trek and he proved to be a
great villain. Denise Crosby brought genuine pathos to her part. She
had a very difficult role and she did great. I also want to
acknowledge John and Anne Carrigan who played our Klingons, directed
by second-unit director, Ben Alpi. Just great.

Behind the cameras, there are just
too many people to name. Props, costumes, sets, painters, carpenters,
set dressing, art direction, lighting, makeup, hair, general
gophering of all kinds, a small army of dedicated committed wonderful
people who came together as an instant family for two weeks. Let me
acknowledge Ralph Miller and “Sarge” Andy Grieb for all
their hard work on sound, and Dave Berry (DP) and his lighting team
for being the hardest working crew I’ve ever met.

Joel Belluci (and his colleagues)
have done incredible work on the SPFX, and Brian Kelly (editor) put
all the thousands of separate pieces together to make it look all
like a real Star Trek episode. I’m sure there are many more
people I should acknowledge and thank here, but it’s late and
my brain is fried, so I apologize to anyone whose name I should have
mentioned and forgot. You guys know who you are and you know how much
I appreciate your hard work.

In particular, of course, we all
have to thank James Cawley, whose singular dedication and passion and
commitment gave us this chance to have one more adventure on the
starship Enterprise.

I personally appreciate all the
thoughtful comments made here by so many people. But now it’s
time to invite all of you to take a step back and stop being critics
for a moment and just enjoy the opportunity to have one more good
old-fashioned opportunity to seek out new life, new civilizations,
explore strange new worlds, and boldly go where no human has gone
before.

Thanks.

David Gerrold

266. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

Still reading through the
discussion, I want to add several points.

1) re: canon.

Pfeh.

On the second or third day of
shooting, one of the new arrivals to the team interrupted a shot
setup to point out that the “Regulan bloodworms” as
portrayed in this script weren’t canon. The set fell instantly
silent as everyone waited to see what my response would be. I turned
around and grinned, “I invented Regulan bloodworms. They’ll
do whatever I write. It’s the other guys who violated MY
canon.”

During the early production of TNG,
more than once I (and other staff members) pointed out things to Gene
Roddenberry that went against things we’d already established.
He said, and I quote word for word: “Allow me the consistency
of my inconsistencies.” As annoying as that phrase might have
been at the time, that was Gene’s gentle way of reminding us
all that the story is always more important than the details.

2) IDIC.

It was not invented for GR’s
company. It was invented as a plot point in a third season episode
(if I remember correctly. Here’s a chance for some fan to
correct my memory.) GR did not start selling scripts and merchandise
until several years later.

3) People being uncomfortable with
the gay scene.

At a preview screening at the Los
Angeles Science Fantasy Society, four people walked out during that
scene. Four men in their fifties or later. A generation gap? A few
weeks later, after a preview screening at LosCon, we held a short
discussion and question-and-answer period. An audience of at least
five hundred (apparently) had no problem with the gay scene. But one
gay fan said afterward it made him uncomfortable — not because
he didn’t want to see it, but because he wasn’t used to
seeing gay characters be so emotionally intimate on screen, and
certainly not in a mainstream environment, and he was worried what
they might be feeling about what they were seeing. He pointed out
that many gay people are uncomfortable with having this discussion in
public — BECAUSE every time the issue comes up, gay men and
lesbians end up having to defend themselves, explain themselves,
justify their claim to equal rights against a variety of arguments,
some of them incredibly ill-informed, and others which pretend to be
enlightened but are ultimately much more damaging.

4) In response to what one poster
said about African Americans not liking the comparison of the gay
civil rights movement to the black civil rights movement — MLK
was in favor of civil rights for gay people, so was Coretta Scott
King. It wasn’t that gay and black are equal, they’re
not. And it’s not that the oppression of gays is equal to that
of blacks, it isn’t. But the prejudice, the discrimination, the
use of the law to deny equal rights to any group is wrong. It’s
the prejudice and the discrimination that’s wrong, and that’s
something that every American needs to understand.

It is interesting that many people
are characterizing the gay protesters as a violent mob, worrying
about the restaurant owner who is being boycotted or the music
director of a theater who was forced to resign his position, because
they donated money to Prop 8 — but where is the outrage on
behalf of the 18,000 couples who just had their marriages annulled by
an initiative that is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority?
Where is the outrage on behalf of our own George Takei and Brad
Altman who have been partners for twenty years, and who have now had
their marriage revoked?

To those who are uncomfortable with
this issue — how would you feel if the people in your state all
voted to revoke YOUR marriage?

268. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

“[[Being as all biological
existence revolves around reproduction, homosexuality is by
definition “wrong”, as it precludes an family’s
genetically continued existence.”]]

Um, actually, that’s a common
misunderstanding. Biological survival isn’t about individuals
surviving, it’s about populations of individuals. It’s
about gene pools. (I refer you to Richard Dawkins ‘The Selfish
Gene’) Dawkins’ hypothesized that successful populations
often produce large numbers of non-breeding members who serve the
breeding members of the population in a variety of ways. For
instance, non-breeding siblings in primates function as additional
caregivers for their breeding sisters and brothers’ offspring.
(Gay aunts and uncles make great baby-sitters.)

In another example, Dawkins points
out that the “altruistic” behavior of those members of
the antelope herd who station themselves as lookouts for predators
might be dangerous to the lookouts, but preserves the rest of the
herd, including the offspring.

So to presume that an individual
who doesn’t reproduce is a non-contributing member of the herd,
flock, species, pack, society is a simplistic error. In human
culture, we know that 25% of all gay couples are raising children.
Many gay couples have adopted special needs children who otherwise
would never have had loving parents at all. So biological
reproduction cannot be the sole measure of an individual’s
contribution — otherwise we might have to say that Beethoven
and DaVinci and Michelangelo and other childless geniuses were
wasting their time too.
270. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

“[[Not only that, but let’s
be real here. MOST Star Trek fans are straight males, and MOST
straight males are (involuntarily) viscerally grossed out by the
sight of man-on-man love. That being so, if they had to show gayness
of the future, why couldn’t they have shown us some hot
girl-on-girl action!?”]]

Thanks for the laugh. The
demographics we looked at in the 80s and 90s showed that Star Trek’s
audience included a surprisingly large percentage of women,
(including many who do like hot man-on-man action.) Nearly 45% if I
remember correctly.

272. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

For the record, I agree that the
love scene plays too slow. But Brian and I still haven’t had
the time to go through and re-edit it to speed it up. Mostly I think
it just needs a little tightening here and there.

Eventually, I hope that we will be
able to do a special “director’s cut” with a few
little surprises in it.

Dg

274. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

“[[I appreciate your
insight, commentary, opinions. But if i am THE David Gerrold™,
no disrespect to any of us - but - I wouldnt waste my time.”]]

I guess, that’s the
difference between you and I. I’ve been a trekkie since
September 8, 1966. Just because I write and sell the occasional book,
doesn’t mean I’ve stopped being a trekkie. Neither has DC
Fontana stopped. Bob Justman never stopped. Those of us who worked on
the show loved it at least as much as the audience. I’d guess
I’ve been to more Star Trek conventions than most people. And I
eagerly joined the Phase II team specifically for the chance to
create more Star Trek.

So why am I participating on this
message board? Several reasons.

First of all, because this episode
has generated so much discussion, I feel it necessary to provide some
hard information about what really happened so folks won’t make
stuff up. And second, because so many Star Trek fans have been so
kind to me over the past 40 years (okay, except for that one who was
really really rude) I feel that this is a good way to say thanks —
by being accessible to answer a few questions.

But most importantly, I really do
want to acknowledge the incredible hard work and commitment and
passion of James Cawley and all the rest of the Phase II people. As
someone who has been involved with multiple incarnations of Star
Trek, I can personally attest that the Phase II team has come closest
to capturing the spirit of the original series than anybody else
since then.

330. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

“[[I mean, gays can work and
get paid. Gays can own a property. Gays have right to have a home.
Gays can marry a woman and reproduce their genes that way. Gays have
freedom of religion. So -what- basic civil rights are they being
denied?

From what I can understand, they
are demanding -extra- rights. They are demanding special treatment
because of their sexuality. Yet they are pretending they are
perfectly normal. So… how is it? Are they normal or aren’t
they? If they are, why they are demanding extra rights?”]]

So your argument is that a gay man
has the same right to marry a woman as a straight man? Do you realize
how pathetically silly that sounds? That’s like saying the rich
have the same right to sleep under a bridge as the poor.

Your misstatement of the issue
would be amusing if it weren’t so ignorant of the real facts in
the matter.

The Federal government has
identified 1138 separate rights, benefits, privileges, and
obligations attendant to the legal recognition of marriage. These
include inheritance, kinship, child custody, hospital visitation,
deathbed decisions, joint tax returns, community property, and so on.
These are not minor matters. The denial of marriage equality for
same-sex couples is a denial of access to equal protection under the
law.

On the issue of ‘extra-rights’
or ’special rights’ — that implies that gay people
are asking for a privilege that straight people do not have. This is
not so. Gay people are asking for the same rights as straight people.
The right to marry the person they love.

Would you tell George Takei that he
cannot marry his partner of twenty years? Would you vote to have the
state automatically dissolve the legality of that relationship? Why?

One of the reasons for the
existence of prejudice against any group is ignorance of who they
are, a lack of understanding. The only way prejudice can be dispelled
is with information and experience so that fear is replaced with
empathy. The portrayal of gay people in any TV show, especially Star
Trek is an opportunity for all of us to increase the boundaries of
the human community, so that it’s about including all of us,
not just some of us.

333. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

“[[If you want my opinion, I
think that this probably had more to do with the episode not getting
filmed than the gay angle: It had not much of anything to do with the
main cast. If they had turned one of the ‘gay couple’ in
to Geordie or Wes or someone like that, and the other member of the
couple in to a guest star, then it would have likely been picked up.”]]

Nope. That’s not the reason
it was shelved. In the first of several rewrites, one of the gay
characters was dropped and all of his lines were given to Tasha Yar.
Even after that, the script was still shelved for reasons that had
nothing to do with the content. History has forgotten some of the
details and blurred the rest.

But as a personal observation, I’ve
noticed that when there is an information vacuum, some people will
fill that vacuum with whatever explanation they like, whether it’s
accurate or not. Please, you can google a lot of information on the
web, and on this forum, you even have the opportunity to ask if
anyone knows the real story.

336. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

[[#284 - “I am a happily
married (for more than 25 years) heterosexual, and in my judgment,
what people do in the bedroom is their own business and I don’t
want to see it or hear about it. However, in order to ensure the
viability of the human race, it is necessary for man and woman to
procreate. Same-sex marriages or liasons do not produce children. And
no matter how badly same-sex couples want to adopt, without the
simple biological process of man-woman sex, there will be no children
to adopt.”]]

Many gay people have children of
their own. A person’s sexual orientation does not automatically
disconnect his or her ability to make a baby. It only takes a few
minutes to make a baby, it takes a whole lifetime to raise one into a
compassionate independent joyous creative generous adult. The latter
is a far more important skill and far more necessary to the survival
of society than simply being fertile. Lots of people can be fertile,
not everybody can be a good parent.

But it’s worth pointing out
that a lot of heterosexual commentators on this issue see it as an
issue of sex, who’s doing what and with which and to who. Most
gay people do not see the issue as being about sex. It’s about
relationships, bonding, partnership, emotional connection. It’s
about building a family together, sharing dreams, being playmates and
yes, lovers too.

Straight couples don’t get
married only for sex. Neither do gay couples. This isn’t about
sex and it isn’t only about children. It’s about being
able to be who you really are — and having the law recognize
and acknowledge that. It’s about life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. It’s not only about the dream of a future that
works for all of us with no one left out, it’s about the
essential promise at the heart and soul of the American charter.
Liberty and justice for all. Do we really need to explain the word
“all?”

337. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

“[[Having said that, I have
a question. Science fiction makes allegorical tales about today’s
world much easier to tell, especially if they’re set in alien
surroundings or future times. However, (and I think I know the answer
to this, and I’ll probably get rapped in the mouth to boot) the
Trek demographic being what it is, would it not have been a little
less political to have featured two different characters - possibly
humanoid aliens - in the roles of Peter and Alex? It seems to me a
bit over-the-top from a dramatic standpoint to make James T. Kirk’s
only surviving relative gay.”]]

Don’t you think that would
have defeated the point of the episode?

Gene Roddenberry promised the gay
fans of the show that we would see gay crewmembers aboard the
Enterprise. He said, “It’s time.” I felt an
obligation to keep that promise. So did James Cawley.

Based on the length and depth of
this thread, the great number of comments, it was not only
appropriate — but necessary. This conversation here, this
thread, is part of the process of building a future that works for
all of us, with NOBODY left out.

339. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

“[[Because that’s not
what happened.
What really happened was that
people were fighting back for their freedoms of speech and belief
against an element that set out to impose themselves oven them.
passing Prop 8 was an act of
self defense.”]]

How were you harmed before Prop 8
was passed? What specific danger were you in?

Do you think it’s right for
people to vote on other people’s marriages?

361. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

[[>>Your kidding, right?
Imagine being a fertility doctor who was sued because she didn’t
want to inseminate a lesbian because it went against her beliefs,
even tho she recommended a qualified doctor down the street.«]]

While that doesn’t have
anything to do with the Proposition 8 question, it does speak to the
issue of equal treatment under the law. Do you think that you should
be bound by law to follow the beliefs of someone else’s
religion? Forbidden to eat cheeseburgers, drink alcohol, eat pork or
shrimp, wear clothes of mixed fibers, etc.? Because someone else’s
religious beliefs are held to be more important than secular law?

I know the case you’re
referring to, it’s one of a body of cases where people are
claiming their religion gives them the right to withhold services
from gay people.

What you believe is your business.
And your business alone. It does not grant you the right to set aside
secular law.

[[>>If you think that was
o.k., then you don’t believe in freedom, my friend.<>Then
considered all the people who have been arrested for “hate
crimes” and “hate speech” crimes because they have
dared to say that they think that homosexuality is immoral.«]]

Name six. Nobody has been arrested
for speaking their opinion. For someone to be arrested for the
commission of a hate crime, they have to commit a criminal act of
violence where it can be proven in court that the act was motivated
by hatred of a specific group or class of people.

[[>>If you think that people
should be arrested based upon their belief, then that’s
tyrranical. «]]

Nowhere have I said that. If that’s
what you’re hearing, you need to read more carefully.

[[>>Eliminate ALL marriage
laws- allow polygamy, and even lift freedom-restrictions from close
cousins- even if it repels you. Otherwise, gays who want to restrict
others of their rights are just as bad as Prop 8.«]]

Now, you are making things up.
Nowhere has any spokesperson for the LGBT community or any gay
activist ever said they want to take away the rights of any other
group of people. In fact, the gay rights leaders have said more than
once that they are committed to equal rights for ALL people and that
there is no justice if any group, gay or straight, is denied equality
in the eyes of the law.

[[>>Then there is the brutal
treatment and hatred of ex-gays at the hands of the gay community. I
bet that irony would never make it to Star Trek- those wanting
tolerance and acceptance denying it of others.«]]

The ex-gay movement is a sham. It
doesn’t work. Every survivor of the movement who I’ve met
has been clear about what a failure it is. The conventions of the
various ex-gay organizations often turn into orgies. The two men who
founded the ex-gay movement quit to become lovers. The British arm of
the ex-gay movement disbanded because it simply didn’t work.
Speaking specifically to your point, there have been no cases of
brutal treatment or hatred of so-called ex-gays. There has been
public disagreement with them, but no one from the gay community has
beaten them or vandalized their property.

[[>>Sorry- if people’s
rights weren’t violated by the gay rights movement, then most
people wouldn’t care. However, claiming minority status for no
other reason than who you want to have sex with is wrong and unfair.
People should have equality, not more equality because they want to
have sex with those of the sam egender.«]]

Based on what you have written, I
don’t think you understand the movement at all. Nowhere has the
gay rights movement violated anyone else’s rights. That some
people are whining that their rights are being violated — upon
closer examination — reveals not only an ignorance of the law,
but a pernicious whiny victim racket, the same kind of whiny victim
racket we heard in the sixties from ardent segregationists who made
silly and outrageous claims that MLK and all his commie militant
uppity activists were infringing on their civil rights by demanding
equality in the eyes of the law.

I’ve been a civil rights
activist since I was a teenager. I’ve studied these issues in
depth. I’ve had the privilege of meeting Harvey Milk, Cesar
Chavez, Bayard Rustin, and many others who helped design the civil
rights campaigns for blacks, Latinos, immigrants, women, children,
the disabled, as well as for LGBT people. I also learned about a
public commitment to civil rights from men like Harlan Ellison and
Gene Roddenberry, not to mention my own African-American cousins. The
first lesson — no matter which side of the argument you choose,
do your research. Learn the other side’s issues as well as your
own. Based on what you have written here, you have repeated the
talking points of the anti-gay movement without ever once asking to
see the evidence or researching the issues. I recommend that you do
some serious googling because all of your arguments have been
addressed in much greater depth than this forum allows.

I am going to add one point. I do
love this controversy. I love this argument. I love this thread. Gene
Roddenberry would have loved it too. Because this is exactly the kind
of discussion that he wanted Star Trek to create among the audience —
where we start looking at issues with compassion, with rationality,
with depth, with insight, with genuine caring, and a mutual respect
and willingness to consider each other’s viewpoints. Thank you
for listening.

378. David Gerrold - December 22, 2008

In rereading through the thread, there’s one more comment I feel compelled to add in response to this comment:

[[>>Sorry- if people’s rights weren’t violated by the gay rights movement, then most people wouldn’t care. However, claiming minority status for no other reason than who you want to have sex with is wrong and unfair. People should have equality, not more equality because they want to have sex with those of the sam egender.«]]

While I’m not going to argue the historical facts of the line that has been drawn between the gay and straight communities, it’s important to acknowledge that this line was drawn by straight people. Straight theologians defined gay as sinful, straight philosophers defined it as amoral, straight legislators defined it as criminal, straight psychiatrists defined it as a behavioral disorder, straight sociologists defined it as a dysfunction. Notice the common denominator here? All of the previous definitions of homosexuality were self-serving definitions. But in the last fifty years, a redefinition of the nature of homosexuality has occurred simultaneous with a much more independent and open minded approach to scientific and biological inquiries on the subject. The scientific communities as well as the sociological and psychiatric communities are coming to a realization that homosexuality occurs as a normative expression of human sexuality. Homosexual behavior has been observed and documented in over 500 different animal species (even republicans!) and an evolutionary model of primate behavior suggests that there are biological and evolutionary advantages to having non-breeding members supporting the success of a gene pool.

The point here is that gay people did not self-define themselves as a minority. Our culture has, for generations, defined homosexuality as a detestable minority. The gay rights movement is a response to that. It did not occur magically like Athena springing from the forehead of Zeus full grown. Many of the leaders of the gay movement, like Morris Kight and Bayard Rustin started in the African-American civil rights movement of the forties and fifties.

And the movement is not about the right to have sex, as the quoted poster above seems to think, it is about ending the arbitrary and unfair discrimination against homosexuality which cannot be justified in the eyes of the law. The poster quoted above also seems to think that there are different levels of equality, that (per George Orwell) some animals are more equal than others. No. Two plus two always EQUALS four, even for especially large values of two. Equality seems to be a difficult concept for some folks.

The key issue before the courts is a very simple one. What is the compelling interest on the part of the state in upholding discriminatory measures against LGBT people? (Lawyers will understand what I mean when I say “suspect class” requires “strict scrutiny.”) So far, no court in the land has found a compelling reason on the part of the government to uphold anti-gay discrimination.

This is why the Blood And Fire episode is not only timely, but necessary. Because equal rights for gay people has become this decade’s civil rights issue, the episode gives all of us a chance to discuss the issues. Silence is not part of the process. Ignoring the issue is not part of the process. Denying the issue is not part of the process. Bringing light into the dark room is part of the process, bringing facts and research and logic, as well as compassion and empathy and understanding, will allow both sides to heal from the terrible wounds of history, will allow families to restore relationships, will allow gay teens the opportunity to find their identities free of fear, will allow all of us to reach a much healthier understanding of human diversity and sexuality.

Discussing the episode lets us examine the issue and challenge our own selves so we can move through all the stages from ignorance to fear to anger to boredom to interest to understanding to mutual community.

Thank you, Anthony for allowing this discussion to be so candid.

(Editor's Note: Anthony Pascale is editor-in-chief of trekmovie.com)

463. David Gerrold - December 26, 2008

I have been a Star Trek fan for 41 years. I have worked on TOS, TAS, TMP, TNG, and DS9. I was consulted by Paramount at various times throughout the early days of the fan phenomenon, and I have probably attended more Star Trek and science fiction conventions than 99% of the people who call themselves Trek fans. I have given of my time freely and generously to my fellow fans because I recognize that it is their enthusiasm that keeps the whole thing going.

Today, this is the first time in 41 years that I am honestly pissed off at the behavior of some fans — specifically those who are talking about reediting Blood And Fire to remove the gay scenes. I am appalled. I am offended. I am insulted. I feel as violated as if you had gone to a bookstore and sliced pages out of my books. What you have done (brady) is wrong. What is even more offensive is that you do not seem to realize just how wrong it is.

In the writing, the planning, the directing of this episode, I expected and hoped that the great majority of the Trek audience would appreciate and celebrate something that has been long overdue in Star Trek, a promise that was made and never kept until now.

Yes, I knew that some people would be uncomfortable — THAT WAS THE DAMN POINT. To have you look at your own biases in the matter and possibly reexamine them. In that regard, we got our job done.

In the last few days, I’ve read hundreds of messages about this episode, possibly thousands, but who’s counting. I am personally astonished and a little bit appalled that the great majority of these messages have been about one scene that attempts to honestly portray two homosexual men declaring their affection for each other — while at the same time ignoring that this episode also has two very violent deaths: one suicide, and one assisted suicide. We also see gory dead bodies in the corridors and in the Captain’s chair. We see more blood and gore in this episode than in most episodes of TOS — but what are people focusing on? One man-to-man kiss. Oh, good grief!

What does this say about us as a culture, fergosh sakes? It says that our culture is sick, repressed, hurting, and emotionally retarded on a level that would be enormously embarrassing if we only had the courage to admit it. We see nothing wrong with hundred-million dollar investments in widescreen car chases, serial killers, slasher films, chainsaw massacres, and all other forms of human-on-human violence. People take young children to the movies and expose them to scenes of such incredible gore, you have to wonder what they’re thinking. But let two men kiss and you’d think we’d hit New York with an asteroid. Good grief!

To all those of you who are having a problem with two men kissing on screen, GROW UP. GET OVER YOURSELVES!

Here’s a clue. Gay people are part of Star Trek.

All of the costumes designed for Star Trek and Star Trek Phase II were designed by William Ware Theiss. The art direction for The Wrath Of Khan and subsequent films was done by Mike Minor, a gay man. Mr. Sulu is played by a gay actors. Several of Star Trek’s best episodes were written by gay or bisexual writers. The contributions to Star Trek by lesbians and gay men are too lengthy to list here. They are part of the Star Trek family.

Next, there are tens of thousands of gay fans of the series. Many of them have made enormous contributions to the Star Trek fan community. They too are part of the Star Trek family.

Gene Roddenberry was very clear, ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, that there will be openly gay crewmembers on the starship Enterprise and that by the 23rd century, we’re going to be a lot more mature on this issue.

In the past fifty years, as a society we have learned to welcome African-Americans, Latinos, Asians of all ethnicities into the national community. We’ve learned to recognize the contributions of women, the elderly, the disabled. We are learning now to recognize and include Muslims as well. And gosh, even the occasional atheist. The original Star Trek took a big chance putting an African-American woman, and an Asian, and even a Russian on the bridge of the Enterprise.

So to those who think they can coopt Gene Roddenberry’s vision of inclusion into a much more restrictive view that excludes one part of the human family, I say — No! Enough! Stop! Stop making things up! I was there. I know what Gene said. You do not get to redefine Gene’s commitment to a future that works for all of us with no one left out. You do not get to reinvent and continue the perpetrations against others that create divisions in the human family. That’s not Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek. That’s not the Star Trek that has inspired hundreds of millions of fans of all faiths, all ethnicities, all cultures, all societies, all possible diversities.

In the long history of the human race, gay men and lesbians have made profound contributions to the advancement of arts, science, medicine, math, and all other areas of human endeavor. Alan Turing was the man who broke the German codes, enabling us to win WWII. Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Tchaikovsky wrote the Nutcracker Ballet and the Romeo and Juliet ballet and Swan Lake. Leonardo daVinci gave us The Last Supper and the Mona Lisa. Florence Nightengale changed the face of modern nursing. Dr. Tom Dooley was one of the great medical visionaries of the sixties. Samuel R. Delaney transformed what was possible in science fiction with only 8 stories and four novels. And so on and so on.

Gay people have earned their place at the American table. Gay people have earned their place in Star Trek. To those of you who have a problem with it, the problem is YOURS.

Grow up.

That’s the real message in Blood And Fire. Grow up.

470. David Gerrold - December 26, 2008

#469

Kirk’s reaction?

First, he was a little bit amused by Peter demanding to be respected as a crewmember.

Second, as you surmised, he was surprised to find that Peter’s relationship was with another man — surprised because of his own specific experience with so many women.

My thinking was that in the 23rd century, although gay relationships will be matter-of-fact, it’s likely that they will still be a relatively small percentage of human marriages — uncommon enough that Kirk would be momentarily caught off balance. Because even though he would be well aware of gay couples, his own expectation would still be heterosexual. I think James did a very good job with that scene.

Let me also acknowledge that we were all well aware of how deeply connected our audience is to the entire Trek ouvre, which is one of the reasons we tossed in so many in-jokes. It was our way of tweaking the nose of some of the cliches we’ve inherited.

Thanks for your kind comments.

488. David Gerrold - December 27, 2008

Jack Marshall is no longer a part of Star Trek New Voyages/Phase II and has not been a part of the series for quite some time.

496. David Gerrold - December 28, 2008

#495

Trust me on this. There was NO influence from the Lost In Space movie. There wouldn’t have been even if I had seen it.

(editor's note: Seen It. In My Opinion, there was absolutely nothing of substance in that movie to be influenced by. I would have used a pseudonym if I were responsible for that plot-less P.O.S.)

505. David Gerrold - January 1, 2009

Chekov was only an ensign. You don’t brief ensigns on top secret matters, only Captains and First Officers.

509. David Gerrold - January 1, 2009

#508.

No. We gain nothing by your edit and lose a lot.

First, we lose our integrity. Because at this point, after the episode has already been seen by thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of fans, such a cut would be seen by many people as a fearful backing away from an honest representation of the relationship.

Second, Gene Roddenberry promised that we would have openly gay crew members on the Enterprise. Such crew members are entitled to equal representation of their lives.

We’ve had forty years of heterosexual smooching on Star Trek. The gay audience is entitled to one homosexual kiss.

All this talk about cutting pieces out of the episode is about as welcome as a group of Trek fans arguing over how best to carve their initials into my furniture — or perhaps even my child.

We worked on this script for months. After all of our discussions and considerations about cutting and pacing and audience reaction and the debts owed to the fans who have supported the original series as well as Phase II, the ultimate decision was made by James and myself to put this scene into the episode because it’s important to the entire story — including the second half which you have not yet seen.

If you want to talk about how much the scene made you squirm, that’s fine with me. It’s supposed to make you squirm. It’s supposed to make you think. If you squirmed, we got the job done.

The scene was written specifically for all the people in the world who have casually dismissed gay people as second best without giving any thought to the fact that they are dismissing the worthiness of other human beings. If this scene challenges those people to realize that gay people have intense intimate lives of their own, then it works and it deserves a place in the episode.

Talking about cutting the kiss is offensive, not just to me — but also to James Cawley and Carlos Pedraza and the two hundred other people who worked their butts off for 14 grueling days to shoot this thing. We knew what we were doing when we did it. Please give us and our work the respect of viewing the episode as we intended.

Feel free to argue about it afterward, we welcome the discussions. But please — no more talk about cutting. Because several thoughtless people have already made it clear they intend to cut out the parts that offend them, James Cawley has decided that future episodes will not be available for download, only streaming. Because that’s the only way to protect the integrity of the episodes from those who choose to Bowdlerize them.

Sincerely,

David Gerrold

515. David Gerrold - January 2, 2009

>>Flame me all you like but, even if secretly, you know I’m right.<<

No, I won’t flame you. Yes, you believe you are right. That’s your privilege. I don’t agree. (And I like to think that I might know a little bit more about this particular production than you.)

All of us worked for over a year on this two-part episode. Despite the limitations of budget, equipment, time, money, and whatever, we approached it with the same seriousness as if it were a genuine film production. That’s why so many of the aspects of this work so well — the 200 people who worked so hard on this approached it with enormous dedication and commitment and passion and enthusiasm. Most of them worked much harder and much longer hours than I’ve seen many professional crews work.

All of us involved with BAF have been following the comments on this and other boards. I personally have read hundreds of comments from fans. Many have been thoughtful and insightful. I’m grateful for that. I’ve also been amused at the few comments that make inaccurate assumptions.

I’ll give you an example. The dark lighting, that many have written about, was a deliberate decision to create a different mood, as well as to demonstrate that the Enterprise was functioning on reduced power because it had been seriously injured in battle. The dark lighting wasn’t a failure, it was a major effort on behalf of Dave Berry, the DP. Another example is a fan who complained about colored gels over the lights, saying that wasn’t good lighting — but that was EXACTLY the kind of lighting that Gerry Finnerman and Bob Justman designed for the original series and Dave Berry worked very hard to duplicate it.

That’s just one example of the kind of care that each and every crew member put into this production. Now multiply that by at least 200. We had a 96 page script. We shot the bulk of it in 14 days. We couldn’t have done that without a very detailed battle-plan. We didn’t just run in, point the camera, and shoot stuff that we thought was a good idea at the time. We spent long weeks and months ahead of time debating every scene and every line of dialog, asking ourselves if it was the best we could do and if it truly represented the SPIRIT of Star Trek. (While I assumed that I might personally have a pretty good knowledge of Gene Roddenberry’s original intentions, I also took the precaution of running the script past DC Fontana before proceeding.)

Does this mean the final product is perfect? Of course not. James Cawley and I have already had discussions about a director’s version that will be cut together as a feature film, not as two separate episodes. We’ve also talked about tweaking the pacing of one scene, cutting one line in another, restoring a couple lines in a third place, and reshooting one smal piece with Uhura that both of us think could be more dramatic.

But even if we stopped right here today, I can tell you that the entire team is very proud of what we have accomplished so far. All of us are very grateful for the enthusiasm of the audience. We love the feedback, we love the passion — because after everything is said and done, we are YOU. We are Star Trek fans too, just like you — and this episode is our way of showing it.

The ONLY thing we have taken serious issue with is the announcement by a couple of fans that they intend to recut the episode. No. Please don’t. That’s OUR privilege. Nobody else’s. Please.

Thanks for listening.

516. David Gerrold - January 2, 2009

Just remember folks, you haven’t seen the second half yet.

You might want to wait until you see Part II, or even a director’s cut which has both parts edited together as a feature-length story. All of Part II depends on what we have set up in Part I.

519. David Gerrold - January 2, 2009

#517.

I have never called anyone here (or on any forum discussing this episode) a homophobe. Please do not imply that I have.

I recognize that some people are uncomfortable with the depiction of homosexuality. That doesn’t make them homophobic. It means that they’re uncomfortable with something that they are unfamiliar with. Like some people are uncomfortable with the idea of eating raw fish wrapped in pickled rice and dried seaweed. It can be a cultural reaction, a visceral one, or just a bit of startlement at the unfamiliar. That some people don’t eat sushi doesn’t make them bigoted, does it?

Gene Roddenberry made a promise in 1986 that we would see gay crew members on the Enterprise. In a script I wrote in 1987, I had one crew person acknowledge in one line of dialog that he and his partner had been together since the academy. The script never got filmed. I moved on, I focused on my novels and raising my child. I didn’t say much about it in public, except when I translated the story into a Star Wolf novel.

In 2006, James Cawley and the Phase II production team asked if they could adapt the original script for Phase II. They wanted to bring Peter Kirk into the series as a regular character, they felt this was the right story for it, and they felt that the relationship should be expanded so the audience would have a clearer sense who Peter Kirk was.

By this time, however, in the snowballing mythology of fandom, the original Blood And Fire script had taken on epic proportions and no matter what we filmed, we knew we would be dealing with expectations and reactions. So let me say it in the clear.

Our commitment in this episode was not simply to recreate TOS, but to recreate its spirit for a 21st century audience. We wanted an episode that would speak to contemporary issues the same way the original Trek spoke to contemporary issues — that’s one of the reasons why James and Carlos and I decided that it was important to explore the relationship.

As for whether or not the scene is too long — I won’t argue that it isn’t slow-paced. Scenes of intimacy almost always feel that way. But I have already said here that I want to tighten the editing so that the pace of the dialog goes faster. And if you held a gun to my head, I could probably point to a couple of lines in the middle that we could lose. But taken in the larger context of the whole story, considering everyything we need to introduce and set up for BOTH parts, understanding that this is Kirk’s nephew who will become a regular in the series, and also in the knowledge that the ultimate vision of this as a 95 minute story with some big payoff scenes in the second half, this one scene has an important dramatic purpose to fill. Until you have how the story finishes up, you can’t know why this scene (and certain key lines of dialog) is so imperative.

Now … as for a political agenda and whether or not that’s appropriate in Star Trek, I suggest you rewatch LET THAT BE YOUR LAST BATTLEFIELD or OMEGA GLORY or BALANCE OF TERROR or OMEGA GLORY and then get back to me.

I appreciate all the care and concern that fans have brought to this discussion, as well as the high level of respect and courtesy. When you see Part II, I think you’ll understand that despite this looking like a horror story, it’s also a very profound relationship story — in a way that I hope will catch everyone by surprise.

522. David Gerrold - January 2, 2009

#521

>>So how will fans who care for the production have a real opportunity to improve it? I am not talking scene edits, I am talking about slightly improving special effects and correcting minor set malfunctions.<<

Join the production team and help avoid those mistakes in the first place…?

524. David Gerrold - January 3, 2009

#523
>>I don’t think it’s valid for you to criticize (in however mild terms) those who are arguing from a POV of entertainment value with how your choice has impaired their enjoyment of the episode - it would seem, objectively, the weight of opinion is firmly on their side. I submit the empirical facts of the matter are clear in this regard. If you cut the two parts together into one movie then it may look different but Part 1 needs to be able to stand as Part 1 alone if that’s the way it’s presented. To be clear, at this point I’d be happy with, `This is only the first half of a movie, wait till you see it all’ but I’m not liking the vibe, `This is Part 1, you’re too stupid and bigoted to accept our message and artistic vision.’<<

That’s not what I said. That’s what you’re hearing.

So, one more time.

All of us involved in the production want people to watch it, enjoy it, think about it, talk about it, even argue about it. But remember, this is only Part I. After you’ve seen Part II, you might have a different understanding of some of the choices we made in Part I.

Whatever you’ve added to that statement is what you’ve added, not what I’ve said. I think you’re arguing with a straw man here.

Now, let me address your comments that seem to imply that the audience gets a vote. Well, yes and no. There’s nothing to vote on. Once a film is finished, the voting is over. It is what it is. Voting won’t change a frame of film or a single pixel in the bitstream.

But in the case of these Phase II episodes, where we are always going back in and tweaking things whenever we see a possibility for improvement, we do that. And we are much harder critics than most of the audience can ever be. Most of us are perfectionists, and we’re far more aware of things we wish we could have done differently or better. There are camera angles I had to use because the design of the sets wouldn’t allow me to put the camera anywhere else or because we didn’t have the time or the equipment to do what I had wished we could have done.

We wish we’d had more time to make a better pair of ears for Spock. We wish we’d had a little more time to light and build a different corridor set for a specific scene. We wish we could reedit this piece or we wish we had a different piece of coverage for that scene. And yes, we do want to tighten the pacing on the cabin scene, we knew that six months ago, but we had to turn our attention to much more immediate issues first.

But ultimately, after all of our “if wishes were fishes” moments, we strove for the very best we could do.

As a filmmaker, I’m very well aware that the audience starts voting even before the end credits start rolling up the screen. Listen to the people filing up the aisle when the lights come back up. “Well, the editing was sloppy. I didn’t like her makeup. The lighting was off in the night-time dance sequence.” Etc. etc. — it’s like being surrounded by a thousand wannabe Siskels and Eberts. When an audience walks out like that, the filmmaker failed to engage them in the story itself. But I also think that audiences have trained themselves to do that, and by doing that, are shooting themselves in the foot, because they’re forgetting that they went to be entertained and they’re investing their energy not in the entertainment event but in the judgment of it afterward.

For me, the most important reaction to a movie is a much simpler one: “Wow, I had a good time!” I like it when an audience says, “Wow, that scared the hell out of me.” Or: “I am so in love with….” Or: “Have you got any more Kleenex?” Because that says they got involved with the characters, believed in the story, and rode the emotional roller coaster.

For the most part, based on what I’ve seen at convention screenings and msgs posted on this and other boards, a majority of our audience is enjoying the episode as it was intended. For me, it was a chance to revisit favorite characters and challenge them in a new way and exercise the spirit of the original show one more time.

But after everything is said and done, if you think I’m here to argue with you, no, I’m not. I’m here to give the folks on this board some extra information about what we did, how we did it, and why we made those choices, so that instead of merely having opinions, you can have informed opinions. So far, most of us involved in the production of Blood And Fire have been enormously gratified by the enthusiasm and passion of the audience.

Thank you.

530. David Gerrold - January 3, 2009

#526

I’m not at all worried about slings and arrows. As a Star Trek fan, I feel an obligation to the rest of the fan community to be accessible to answer questions. Bob Justman used to come to conventions to thank the fans for their enthusiasm because their enthusiasm was the fuel that actually powered the Enterprise and so I do the same thing too.

538. David Gerrold - January 4, 2009

>>OTOH I believe I can give valid criticism (if nothing else, my Honours year at University was in Psychology) that your portrayal of the behaviour of two 20 years old homosexual males is that of two who are highly untypical. Of course, you can easily defend your writing on the simple principle that any two given individuals behave how they behave and typically-observed behaviour only counts in the abstract. It would be interesting to ask George Takei if he thinks the portrayal of two gay males as if they are simply a heterosexual couple who both happen to be male is funny or offensive. In the end is only SF I suppose… it’s bizarre, it’s like someone writing as to what they imagine a homosexual couple might act like based only on watching teen girl/boy pairs of actors getting it on in episodes of “90210.” That’s SF for you, right there! Either that or my conception includes all the homosexual guys I know having dedicated decades to winding me up, which seems rather implausible… hmm…<<

I remember how I was the first time I fell in love. And I can remember exactly how those conversations went and how they felt and how they played out. (And how truly silly they would have seemed to a detached onlooker.) Then I thought about how to portray that level of intimacy on screen. (Start with intense eye contact.) Then I thought about all the various plot points we had to establish at the very beginning of the episode. Then I thought about how to get the actors to portray it in a way that would engage the audience. Then, after weeks of writing and rewriting, a hasty week of rehearsing, a somewhat frenzied day of shooting, which involved an enormous number of technical problems — not the least of which was teaching the two actors how to fall off the bed without hurting themselves — the big question was not, “Is this the way I pictured this scene?” The big question was “Can I use what they’re giving me?” And “If I start trying to push too many changes on them, will I ruin the magic of what they’re creating?” For my part, I think the scene does play a little too slow — but that’s true of all scenes of human intimacy — but I intend to revisit the editing to see if we can tighten the pacing with some judicious cutting and re-editing.

As for how real homosexuals view this scene, most of the gay people who have seen the entire episode at conventions have told me how much they loved it, although one or two were uncomfortable with the idea that such realistic gay intimacy might be shown to straight audiences who might not understand it and who might find it disturbing to see two men kissing.

Myself, I’d rather be accused of pushing too hard than not pushing hard enough. A few months from now we’ll have part II out, and sometime after that, we’ll have the whole thing edited into a feature-length film. And that’s when you’ll see it in its proper context.

541. David Gerrold - January 4, 2009

#539

I agree that the scene occurs far too early in the story — but where else would it fit? Believe me, we had that discussion too.

545. David Gerrold - January 4, 2009

#544

Nice catch!

That’s a very interesting and insightful comment and it makes a lot of good sense. Thanks.

Yes, we do have Alex checking Peter’s flash-burn, but perhaps we could have spent a couple of lines on, “I’m so glad you weren’t hurt.”

On the other hand, (while this doesn’t justify the omission, it does explain it), because of the length of the script and the complexity of the two-part episode, we were in a hurry to push forward into the rescue mission part of the story.

But you’re right and I’m embarrassed that none of us who were working so hard on all the different parts of the script realized we could have used that to heighten the drama of that scene. Thanks.

547. David Gerrold - January 4, 2009

#533 Henry Daniels

I respect your right to disagree. I respect your right to your beliefs. I respect your right to express your views.

Now it is my turn to express mine.

I have always believed that all of us, gay or straight, black or white, Christian or Jew or Muslim or atheist or whatever, old or young or somewhere in between, American or African or Asian or whatever — all of us are alone in this together. We are human beings, on a whirling little speck of dust, halfway out the spiral arm of a mostly insignificant galaxy lost somewhere among the trillions of galaxy in a universe so vast we don’t have the language to even begin evoking its scale. We, all of us, are all we have. This is it. Just us.

What we have in common — all of us — is far more similar than any differences we think we have. We all want clean air and clean water, a warm place to sleep, and decent food. We all want to be able to take care of our families, raise our children to be good people, make sure they have excellent educations, and all the necessary health care to keep them resistant to disease and infirmity. We all want good fulfilling work. We all want security for ourselves, our families, our communities, our nation. We all want a chance to do better for ourselves and the people around us. Given that we all have so much in common, I think the two silliest things in the world to argue over are how we say our prayers and who we fall in love with.

Instead of arguing about the right way to pray, we should be thrilled that others are seeking a spiritual path. Instead of arguing about the right way to fall in love, we should be celebrating that love is possible and joyous and that so many people on this planet are able to achieve it and that so many more are hungry for it.

We should be cherishing our diversities and learning from each other.

When we set out to film Blood And Fire, we knew that some people would have a problem with it. We argued and debated and discussed and considered the gay characters for the better part of a year. And ultimately, we kept coming back to several key points:

First, this is a promise that Gene Roddenberry himself made, in public, more than once, to Star Trek’s gay fans. This was a promise we wanted to keep.

Second, it wasn’t enough to just have these characters say that they’re gay in a couple lines of dialog, that was a cop-out; because after we considered everything we were about to put them through, we felt that if we truly honored and respected the people these characters represented, we would give them a moment of genuine intimacy, a genuine “I love you” and a kiss.

Third, we’ve had forty years of heterosexual smooching in Star Trek, including Kirk dry-humping a green-skinned Orion girl in the upcoming movie. Given that a significant percentage of Star Trek’s fans identify themselves as gay or bisexual or having had such relationships, even 4 minutes of the “silliness” (as you characterized it) was probably not out of line.

And finally, after we made that commitment to the characters and thought about it some more and discussed it some more, we recognized the very real possibility that some viewers might be uncomfortable. And that’s when we realized that was the most important reason why we had to include the gay characters in this episode.

Mr. Daniels, WE MADE THIS EPISODE SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU. We made this episode just for you — and for everybody who thinks about gay people like you do.

We wanted you to squirm. We wanted you to be uncomfortable. We wanted you to be challenged. WE WANTED YOU TO THINK.

Hell, we wanted to kick you so far out of your comfort zone, you’d need Warp 6 for a week just to get within subspace radio distance of your comfort zone again.

WE WANTED YOU TO SEE THAT THERE ARE OTHER POSSIBILITIES. AND THIS WAS THE WAY WE CHOSE TO DO IT.

Some people have assumed that we had an agenda in making this episode. They’re right, we did. But it’s not the agenda people have presumed.

Our agenda was to have you stop and consider a possibility — just consider it — for only four minutes, that’s all — that gay people are human beings too, loved by God, equal in the eyes of God, cherished by God, and given the same gifts from God as you — the ability to love and connect to another human being.

We’re not asking you to agree. We’re not asking you to turn gay. We’re not asking you to attend a same-sex wedding. We’re not asking you to do anything except CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT GAY PEOPLE HAVE REAL LIVES TOO. Lives of joy and wonder and love, just like everybody else.

Some people have logged on here and said that the gay scene made them squirm, so they had to look at their own feelings in the matter. They’re the ones who figured it out why we put that scene in the episode.

Now it’s your turn. Or not.

As I said above, I respect your right to disagree. I respect your right to express your views.

And I reserve the right to disagree with your views and express my own in return.

Godspeed.

551. David Gerrold - January 6, 2009

#550

Michael,

Thank you!

Yes, of course, I will have that conversation with James.

My thinking on it is that those who apply their own edits to the episode will only end up embarrassing themselves in the eyes of anyone they show it to. In fact, they will probably end up sending more people searching the web to see what they cut out and shrugging and saying, “Is that all? What a maroon.”

When I was in high school, we were well aware of everything we weren’t supposed to read. That’s why the books opened up automatically to those pages…..

David

553. David Gerrold - January 7, 2009

#552 >>David, I don’t understand this grandstanding you’re doing about this scene.<<

That’s right. You don’t understand.

That’s why we put it in.

I’ll say it again. Wait until you see both parts put together. Then come back and tell me if you think the story would be better without the same-sex relationship.

As for the scene seeming slow-paced, well yes, and we will do our best to tighten it. But … all scenes of intimacy seem slow-paced, especially in the context of an action series.

For the record, the script as written for TNG was not the same as the script we shot for Phase II. Carlos Pedraza did an excellent job of translating the story from one show to the other. In the TNG version, the same-sex relationship was only alluded to in four lines of dialog, and that was pretty much it. There was no “gay scene.” When Carlos and James (and myself) realized that we were going to give one of the parts to Kirk’s nephew, we also recognized that we would need to expand the relationship so the audience would have a better sense of Peter Kirk because Peter Kirk will be a continuing character in Phase II. This story is his story and it’s a great introduction to the character — but by the end of the second hour, you will also see that it’s one of the most difficult situations that James T. Kirk has ever been through as well.

In our commitment to stay true to the spirit of Star Trek, we passed the script in front of DC Fontana for her approval. Plus I had conversations with Bob Justman, who also felt that including a gay relationship in the Enterprise crew was long overdue.

When we shot it in 2007, we had no idea that same-sex marriage was going to be a national controversy in 2008, the synchronicity is coincidental, but we are all proud that we have made an episode that speaks directly to this issue. Right now, in California, there are people who want to dissolve George Takei’s marriage to Brad Altman and 18,000 other marriages. I believe that’s wrong. And if standing up and arguing for the right of same-sex couples to marry is “grandstanding” then so be it. I would rather be accused of pushing too hard than be thought of as one whose silence became complicity.

In the meantime, wait for Part II. That might change your feelings about the necessity of that scene in Part I.

555. David Gerrold - January 7, 2009

#554

I have made myself accessible to you and others specifically to give you the backstory how this episode came to be. I am not here to argue, simply to inform. The time I have spent on this message board is a sign of how much I respect you and other fans and how much I believe you are entitled to accurate information.

Here’s some more information:

I was quite done with Blood And Fire a long time ago. I walked away from Star Trek in 1987 so I could concentrate on other things more important to me — like adopting and raising my son.

In 2006, James Cawley asked me to join Star Trek New Voyages and he specifically asked if he could adapt Blood And Fire. I gave it to him with little intention of any further involvement, but only after I saw World Enough And Time was I motivated to invest my own time and energy into directing the episode.

Shortly after, while spelunking through various fansites and blogs that discussed the lack of gay characters on Trek, I found a simple statement of hurt from a gay teenager who said, “I hate you Star Trek for making me invisible.” That was when I knew in my own heart why we had to include Peter and Alex.

The point that Gene Roddenberry used to make over and over and over was that Star Trek is about a future that works for all of us, with no one left out. He used to tell writers, “What’s that story that sticks in your craw, that no one else will let you tell? That’s the one I want you to do for Star Trek.” He used to give the best inspirational speeches this side of Martin Luther King and a lot of Trek’s best stories came from writers who believed in that commitment.

That was the same commitment that James Cawley and the Phase II team wanted to make, so I joined the production with enthusiasm because I saw it as a chance to revisit the spirit of the original Star Trek. Like you, I’m a Star Trek fan. Like you, there are stories I want to see told, relationships I want to see explored. No one else was writing this story, so I had to. Is it the best possible? I dunno. I’m too close to it. Is it the best we could do? I’m proud of the job we did, considering how limited our resources were. Does it work? For the most part, I think so.

Is the story predictable? Maybe. It’s structured like a classic Star Trek story. Like it or not, there’s a formula — even down to the kind of speech Kirk gives at the end. Does one of the characters die? Well, that’s no secret. Copies of the script and my own novelized version have been available for years. Is that scene too slow-paced? Probably. Is it gratuitous? Not taken in context. (Wait for Part II, wait until you see what else we have in store for Peter Kirk.) Have I acknowledged the validity of the comments here and elsewhere? For the most part, yes. (See my comments to Michael Hall.)

Now … will the episode change things for the better? Will it create a dramatic change in public attitudes? Will it overturn Proposition 8 or end Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell? No. Of course not. We never intended it to. Are we saying “Gays are people too?” Sure. Every time a gay character gets written into a story, whether it’s Torchwood or Sarah Conner Chronicles or Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica, it’s an acknowledgment that gay people exist. Does that mean including them is an agenda? Sure, the same way that including blacks and Asians and Latinos and Jews is an agenda — the agenda of showing that diversity and equality can be matter-of-fact. And maybe with the passage of time, people will start to wonder what the fuss was all about.

But to speak directly to your question, what kind of a difference will this story make today, right now? Well, maybe some viewers will be indifferent, maybe some will shrug it off, maybe some will dismiss it. But for some viewers, it might have considerable impact — I certainly hope the young gay fan I referenced above has a chance to see it.

We already know that this episode is having an impact in the fan community. The immediate effect is a lot of healthy discussion, here and elsewhere. For some people, the result of that discussion is movement. One particularly poignant message came from a person who, after seeing the episode, was better able to understand his gay brother. So, yeah, on a very personal level, this story worked for one viewer. And I expect in the weeks and months to come, it will open up other discussions for other people. We’ll see.

Ultimately, this story, as it was rewritten by Carlos and myself is not really about gay people anymore. It is simply about people. It is about family relationships. (If you recast either Peter or Alex as a woman, you wouldn’t have to change a single line of dialog. We did that deliberately.)

And as I have said repeatedly, everything in the first half is there to set up everything we are going to do in the second half. After you’ve seen the whole thing as a single story, you might have a different understanding of some of the choices we made.

Thanks again for the high level of courtesy and respect in your comments. We may still disagree, but at least we do so in the proper spirit.

Sincerely,

David Gerrold

( Editor's Note: I will continue to update this article. Please see the link at the top of the page for the original source article and all user comments in their original context. I only have permission to reprint Mr. Gerrold's words here. If you think your comments should be added to the article, email me. )