IT SORT OF came out of nowhere, years later, in an interview with the U.K. magazine Radio Times. After a successful reinvention of the Doctor Who franchise in 2005, star Christopher Eccleston rather mysteriously bowed out at the end of the first season. The official announcement cited a grueling production schedule and Eccleston’s fear of being typecast. The BBC later retracted its statement and admitted it hadn’t spoken to Eccleston before it was issued.

And that’s where things remained until Eccleston’s Radio Times interview this week in the run-up to his role in the upcoming BBC biopic Lennon Naked. He tells the magazine he left the successful series because, “I was open-minded but I decided after my experience on the first series that I didn’t want to do any more. I didn’t enjoy the environment and the culture that we, the cast and crew, had to work in.”

Eccleston doesn’t explain what he found so objectionable about the environment and the culture, just that he “wasn’t comfortable.” He continues, “I thought ‘If I stay in this job, I’m going to have to blind myself to certain things that I thought were wrong.’ And I think it’s more important to be your own man than be successful, so I left.”

The Code That Dare Not Speak Its Name

The environment? Certain things? That were wrong? All these sound like code words for Something That Dare Not Speak Its Name. Especially when you consider that the “culture” was set by the show’s executive producer at the time, Russell T. Davies, notorious for his very gay Queer as Folk and for introducing the most overt gay references in the formerly staid Doctor Who franchise.

While it’s certainly troubling that Eccleston may have had some issues with appearing on a show that had him kissing another guy, it’s more troubling that this is topic is still Too Shameful to Discuss Openly. And not just by him. The narrative in the media is that Eccleston is “finally” revealing why he left the show.

Except he really hasn’t. All his vague terms are very “wink and a nod” in nature, and the media coverage is reciprocating by dutifully quoting him without really challenging what’s behind the quotes. Nobody — including the media — wants to simply say, Russell T. Davies made Doctor Who too gay for Christopher Eccleston.

If that’s not what you meant, Mr. Eccleston, perhaps you should clarify? That’s what Radio Times, the BBC and everyone else who’s covering the hell out of this story should be asking. But they haven’t. No one’s calling him to account for his comments and what lies behind them. And that’s a failure of the media, not just Christopher Eccleston.

Next: Up to the Fans to Discuss the Real Issue »

We’re supposed to be inspired by films about resilient inner-city children who surmount the obstacles of their lives — poverty, physical and sexual abuse, illiteracy, the shackles of welfare — and certainly that’s the proposition of the film, Precious: Based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire.

But inspiration isn’t what you leave this film feeling. What distinguishes Precious is its ability to draw you in because of the expectations you’re likely to bring into the theater and then push them aside, sometimes violently and sometimes with a measure of sudden grace.

The film’s trailer certainly sets up the gloom you expect from this type of story, but the film itself subverts it through a set of fantasy sequences that are a two-edged sword for Claireece Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe). Her fantasy life helps her survive the depraved abuse she suffers at home but it also threatens to keep her from grabbing what few opportunities life tries to hand her.

This is not a feel-good movie. Blind Side is a feel-good movie with a tidy happy ending. Set in 1987 Harlem, Precious will make you feel a little dirty before you are allowed to wring a tiny, yet valuable, drop of refined hope from the raw and crude morass that is the life of its main character. Precious’ happiness is in no way guaranteed, and doom hangs in the air even at the film’s end.

Next: Words hurt. A lot. »

I was honored to learn that TrekMovie.com, the leading Star Trek movie news site, named the Star Trek: Phase II production of my screenplay, “Blood and Fire, Part 2” the best Star Trek fan production of 2009.

That, along with Joss Whedon telling Rolling Stone that “World Enough and Time,” the Star Trek: Phase II production I co-executive produced, inspired him to create Dr. Horrible’s Singalong Blog, made my year.

Rolling Stone, btw, named Phase II, which I wrote for and produced, one of their five must-watch Web series.

“Blood and Fire” is based on a script Gerrold originally authored for Star Trek: The Next Generation. It was never produced because its passing reference to a male couple aboard the Enterprise was considered too controversial by the producers.

I adapted the script for the original Trek series-based Phase II, expanding the story to include Captain Kirk’s nephew Peter as one part of the male couple. Interestingly, two decades later, that portrayal proved plenty controversial when “Blood and Fire, Part 1″ debuted a year ago.

Fortunately, Part 2′s release this past November was greeted by far fewer objections.

Something’s rotten in America, if you believe Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan. All the things that used to be right about the nation have been upended. By Adam Lambert, no less.

Yes, that pesky homosexual has breached the tacit cultural compromise that Noonan, Ronald Reagan’s former speechwriter, argues has kept the folks in the flyover states from rising up in revolt. Or maybe just revulsion.

At the heart of her argument is a recent poll that finds 55 percent of the public believe the country is on the “wrong track.” Despite the fact we’re in the worst economy since the Great Depression, Noonan believes this poll result must be about more than the economy.

And while 55 percent is not a figure we should be happy about, it doesn’t compare to the 80 percent who thought that in April 2008 under George W. Bush’s presidency, and that was before the bottom dropped out of the economy in fall 2008 during the presidential campaign.

To be fair, she admits the economy might have something to do with Americans’ recent turn to pessimism:

The economy has always had an impact on the general American mood, and the [NBC-Wall Street Journal] poll offered data to buttress the reader’s assumption that economic concerns are driving pessimism.

About ‘Other Things’

But let’s set that aside, she says, because:

Something tells me this isn’t all about money. It’s possible, and I can’t help but think likely, that the poll is also about other things, and maybe even primarily about other things. … Various polls [demonstrate] that those things may dwarf economic concerns. Americans are worried about the core and character of the American nation, and about our culture.

Never mind that Noonan doesn’t specify what polls discuss those ‘other things,’ nor does she specify what those polls actually demonstrate. Instead, she opts for the vague worry about the “core and character” of America and its culture. What better springboard for an attack on what she calls “the cultural left” than a non-specific anxiety that has likely been present during every economic downturn?

Indeed, when we abandon what all the data indicates is the greatest proximate cause for Americans’ worries, Noonan is left with a wide open field to cast about for whatever convenient straw man she cares to name. This time it’s the cultural tyranny imposed on “real” Americans (in Sarah Palin’s parlance) by the cultural left in the Big Cities — home, apparently, to all the fake Americans.

Next: We don’t care what you do in New York …

Randy Hall of SciFiPulse reviews “Blood and Fire,” Parts 1 and 2.

PART 2 of “Blood and Fire,” the Star Trek: Phase II episode I co-wrote with David Gerrold was released Nov. 21, nearly a year after Part 1. Part 2 features Star Trek: The Next Generation star Denise Crosby in a great guest-starring role. I’ve been so busy lately I haven’t had time to track down all the reviews, but here are excerpts of some I’ve come across so far.

Part 2 doesn’t seem to have engendered the vitriol that Part 1 did with its depiction of a relationship between two male officers aboard the Enterprise (one of them Capt. Kirk’s nephew. Shocking!).

This episode features Star Trek: The Next Generation star Denise Crosby in a great guest-starring role and amazing visual effects by my dear friend Joël Bellucci. ¡Hire him! Dave Berry was the director of photography and Ben Alpi the second-unit director — all three are my partners in Runic Films and associates of the production company, Blue Seraph Productions, owned and operated by me and J.T. Tepnapa (who also debuts in the episode as the newest Mr. Sulu).

The Reviews

• SciFiPulse.net (Randy Hall) —

The “gold standard” of independent Trek productions. … I have to wonder how much longer Phase II can continue to be considered an “amateur” series.

• TrekMovie.com (Anthony Pascale) —

Director David Gerrold keeps an even better pace with part 2. … It flows like a Star Trek episode. … The script, by Gerrold and Carlos Pedraza (based on an unused TNG script by Gerrold) also (mostly) rings true for classic Trek, full of traditional themes like family and sacrifice. … The effects are top notch for a fan film (and even many ‘real’ TV shows).

• Treks in SciFi blog —

This series of fan films has always been my favorite and they do a great job of capturing the feel of the original series and also giving us things we never got to see in the past. The sets are incredible and detail is amazing. Each episode gets better and better in terms of production values and they have many more episodes planned.

• TheLogbook.com (Earl Green) —

Another outstanding entry for Phase II. … I guess my ambivalence about [Part 2] is the allegory went. For years, tales have circulated about “Blood and Fire” being an appropriately fiery criticism of the lack of forward motion on a cure for AIDS, with the bloodworms standing in for the disease; Part 2 really seems to drop that ball. I was ready – and rooting for – David Gerrold to tear into all sorts of social injustices, and somehow it just doesn’t happen. Maybe over the years the legend became bigger than the story itself. In any case, the script as written/rewritten is expertly executed.

That’s a really legitimate question: One I’ll take on when I get a chance. Meanwhile, the review and comments on the gay-themed AfterElton blog were a bit sharper, and make some good points. Here’s a snippet:

• AfterElton.com (Ed Kennedy) —

Don’t get me wrong – this is an amazing product for a fan production. It just didn’t strike the right emotional tone to feel like Star Trek. Star Trek doesn’t do romance, at least not like this. Swashbuckling style is what it does well. … And I can’t recall a family moment like the Kirks had, even between Picard and Wesley Crusher. This was more of a Lifetime movie set on the Enterprise. And as Lifetime movies go, it was pretty good. But it wasn’t Star Trek.

What did the fanboys think of it? Last time it was pretty harsh. This time, the forums seem to have quite a few gay men in them, who appreciate the story. As for the review? It’s pretty much the opposite of what I said. Don’t worry, I’m used to it.

Don’t forget to read the comments.

WTF, Netflix?

Technically, Netflix’s choices are more about me than about them, but seriously, Netflix, why would you include these two movies on the same recommendation screen? Superman: Doomsday — a cartoon for whom children are the intended audience (which I have actually seen) — beside X-rated Caligula?

Would Jesus be so Spiteful?

In the wake of the District of Columbia’s city council’s passage of an ordinance allowing gay marriage in Washington, D.C., the Catholic Church plans to retaliate in a most un-Christian manner: Threatening to deny its charitable services to the poor and needy in the nation’s capital. Bad form. Even if you believe Jesus hates the homos, he’s certainly on record as being pro- the needy (Matthew 25:31-46):

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Prop. 8 opponents protest in chalk at L.A.’s Mormon Temple.

Wouldn’t the world be a wonderful place if we could shed labels like black, white, Latino, Asian, gay, bisexual or lesbian? We like to imagine — assume, even — that humanity will only ever continue to progress socially and technologically and that one day such distinctions will blur into a pleasant haze of meaninglessness.

That is dangerous thinking.

We rejoice at our own peril at the California Supreme Court’s recent decision declaring gay marriage legal under the state’s constitution. While the ruling clearly represents progress in civil rights, some worry it could spark a backlash at the polls in which right-wing voters turn out in large enough numbers to swing California’s treasure trove of electoral votes from blue to red, costing the Democrats the White House yet again.

Those fears may be overblown but there’s no doubt that gay issues continue to press political hot buttons at every level of society. Every new bit of gay news digs beneath our polite surface to reveal deep-seated prejudices and fears. Our own science fiction subculture is no more immune to the phenomenon than any other, despite our high-minded claims to imagining a better future.

Pushing Homos

Consider the news item several weeks ago in which Bryan Fuller, executive producer of the ABC series Pushing Daisies, disclosed that Star Trek: Voyager was to have featured a gay couple. Fuller, who was a producer on Voyager, confessed to AfterElton.com that he was glad the characters never materialized because they were so two-dimensional. Even so, the news occasioned all manner of discussion on the various Trek-related forums, including an awful lot of homophobic drivel, as well as a reminder that fan film producers beat “real” Star Trek to the punch by introducing gay characters years ago.

I used to write and produce the fan series that did so, Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, which introduced several gay characters, including Ro Nevin, a Bajoran who is the first gay starship commander in the succeeding series, Star Trek: Odyssey. I co-wrote with scifi author David Gerrold the script, “Blood and Fire,” which introduces gay characters into Trek’s original series via Star Trek: Phase II (formerly Star Trek: New Voyages). The two fan-produced series made bold moves by tackling the subject, receiving both kudos and condemnation in return.

Among all the discussion I’ve recently noticed a disturbing trend in which homophobes have found common ground with some proponents of portraying gay people in Star Trek — namely, that 200 or 300 years from now being gay doesn’t matter. Here’s how one reader, msspurlock, put it in the comments on TrekWeb’s story about gays on Voyager:

People who are as sad and deluded as to think this will even be a topic of discussion in the 23rd Century are morons. Morons lacking any imagination. Morons seeking external validation in the present day for something that will not be a topic of discussion in the positive future Roddenberry outlined. So anyone making an issue of it now, is either looking to cash in or get press coverage.

Compare this with how Star Trek: Hidden Frontier’s producer, Rob Caves, characterized about his gay Bajoran, Ro Nevin. In announcing the character’s new show, Star Trek: Odyssey, Caves described Ro as bisexual instead of gay, which he later admitted was a lie to make the new Odyssey series more palatable to a general audience.

The only reason that I did that was so we didn’t scare away the homophobes right out of the gate. … I should have stood up and just said he was gay and not cared what people think or if they watch the show or not, but … I wanted people to give this show a chance.

Remarkably, however, Caves reversed course and retracted the gay label again:

I quickly retracted my statement that Ro is gay and that’s that. Because … it shouldn’t be about those labels at all. … Not once did we hear Ro or anyone else refer to him as gay. As far as I’m concerned, that label is more or less extinct by the 24th century.

Next: Gay extinction? »