Orci talks about Star Trek 3

[borgboy]

There are a lot less LGBT representation in media than a lot of people think there is, especially when you consider how rare it is to have a gay character that's not just a minor supporting character. How many mainstream movies actually have a gay lead? Virtually none.
As for this standard that a gay character should only be there if it serves the plot, that's an incredible double standard, as heterosexual characters's orientation often don't serve the plot. A gay character can be in a story without their orientation being a plot point, just like Uhura can be black without her race being a plot point.

As for religion and Trek, I remember a sci fi show that did have a subplot about introducing a vast diversity of religious people to an alien, but I think that may have been Babylon 5.

 

[M'Sharak]

Since we are on the subject of representation, As a person of strong Christian faith, I would like to see a real Christian character in Star Trek. If X-Men can have a Christian character in their films why not Star Trek? If people want a gay character in star trek because it represents them then I want a Christian character in star trek because it represents me as well.


Sometimes it feels like when main stream media or all this huge Hollywood franchises talk of representation. Those of strong Christian faith are left out in the cold. At times we are ridiculed and mocked for our beliefs and our faith in their TV shows and films.

If any franchise can correct that error I hope it is star trek. Since star trek was about all forms of acceptance and representation.

If one were to tally it all up, I suspect that—over the entire history of western cinema, including Hollywood*—it would be found that Christian characters (especially male ones) far outnumber characters belonging to all other categories combined. The more recent trend towards inclusion of characters whose primary identifying characteristic is [something other than simply being a heterosex Christian of European descent] is in no way, shape or form equivalent to leaving Christians "out in the cold". In the end, it would only be charitable (dare I say, "Christian"?) for the group who's been holding a virtual monopoly for decades to move over and make a little room by the fire for the newer folks.

If, however, you wish to pursue the notion that people of "strong Christian faith" really are being "left out in the cold" by present-day Hollywood, I'd suggest starting a thread which is expressly about that subject, and starting it in a forum which is appropriate to the topic. (Or, you know, write a blog entry about it.)



* Bollywood undoubtedly tips the scales a fair bit away from overwhelmingly Christian, just by virtue of sheer volume, but you weren't really thinking in terms of non-Western cinema, anyway, were you?

 

[The Doctor]

This is probably the one instance where I'll quote Picard, from the episode "Who Watches the Watchers:"

Horrifying. Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? NO!

There aren't any Christians in Star Trek because they've all moved beyond the 'dark ages of superstition, ignorance and fear.'

 

[Christopher]

If one were to tally it all up, I suspect that—over the entire history of western cinema, including Hollywood*—it would be found that Christian characters (especially male ones) far outnumber characters belonging to all other categories combined. The more recent trend towards inclusion of characters whose primary identifying characteristic is [something other than simply being a heterosex Christian of European descent] is in no way, shape or form equivalent to leaving Christians "out in the cold". In the end, it would only be charitable (dare I say, "Christian"?) for the group who's been holding a virtual monopoly for decades to move over and make a little room by the fire for the newer folks.

Oh, absolutely. It's ridiculous for the group that's always been the default population in film to complain that they're being "marginalized" just because they no longer have a total monopoly on representation. It's still a safe bet that any given character in movies or TV is Christian by default. Whenever you see a wedding, it's usually in a church or officiated by a priest or minister. Most characters routinely swear to God instead of Allah (different way of saying the same thing, but still) or Buddha or Krishna. Look at Man of Steel. Clark Kent didn't go to a rabbi or an imam or a psychiatrist to advise him on a moral decision, he went to a priest. No, he wasn't explicitly shown reciting Bible passages or going door to door trying to convert people, but he was obviously Christian, just like every American film character is assumed to be unless they specify otherwise. (Never mind that Superman's creators were Jewish.) And heck, we just had a big-budget Noah movie just a decade after Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, but I don't recall seeing a big-budget Ramayana or Journey to the West on American screens. We've had Morgan Freeman play the Judeo-Christian God in a couple of comedies, but nobody's cast Kal Penn in a comedy about the Buddha.

 

[borgboy]

Also, Christian culture is very prevalent, but it's taken for granted that Christians don't acknowledge it as representation. We see people in films and tv wearing crosses, celebrating Christmas, praying more than people think. Christian influence over media is saturated, so it seems unreasonable to say they aren't being represented.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

This is probably the one instance where I'll quote Picard, from the episode "Who Watches the Watchers:"

Horrifying. Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? NO!

There aren't any Christians in Star Trek because they've all moved beyond the 'dark ages of superstition, ignorance and fear.'

This.

 

[M'Sharak]

If it's all the same, I'd rather not have The Picard Argument™ break out in here, either.

 

[BillJ]

I'm still left with the impression that there will be no gay characters included.

Sounds to me like they simply don't know yet.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

As for this standard that a gay character should only be there if it serves the plot, that's an incredible double standard, as heterosexual characters's orientation often don't serve the plot. A gay character can be in a story without their orientation being a plot point, just like Uhura can be black without her race being a plot point.

On rereading the post, I will amend my original statement. A gay character should be there to serve either the plot or the characterization of the film (just as every other character should be there to serve either the plot or the characterization), and it should be the character themselves who does so, not just the fact that they're gay. In other words, they shouldn't be shoehorning in a completely random character who has nothing to do with the movie just so they can say, 'Look, we have a gay character!'

 

[Christopher]

It's really not complicated to figure out how to do this. Just give characters romantic interests like you always do in fiction, approach those romances the same way you always would -- but have some of those romances happen to be same-sex. That's all there is to it.

Although, granted, it can be hard to find places to insert romantic subplots in action-oriented movies; generally it's limited to the hero's love interest (or the hero's random seductions, depending on the hero). So it's probably easier to casually incorporate diverse relationships into something like a romantic comedy or a character-based drama than in an action-adventure movie where relationships of any sort will mostly tend to be background detail at best. That's the thing that could make it hard to include a gay or lesbian relationship as anything more than a token allusion.

On the other hand, the 2009 film managed to show or allude to relationships between George and Winona Kirk, Sarek and Amanda, Jim Kirk and Gaila, Spock and Uhura, McCoy and his ex-wife, and Nero and his wife. STID had less in that regard but included Thomas and Rima Harewood (the couple with the sick little girl), Spock and Uhura, Kirk's tryst with the two tailed (not Caitian!!) women, Kirk's flirtation with Carol, and references to Admiral Marcus's unseen wife. But that only includes one depicted relationship that had any dialogue in it at all. So the odds are better if we get a movie that's more like ST '09 than STID.

 

[mos6507]

I'd rather not have fraternization shown between the crew. It was rarely done in TOS and never worked well in TNG onward (IMHO). This sort of thing is a hallmark in anime (think Robotech) but should be left out of Trek. What happens behind closed doors is a private matter and should not bubble up to dialogue on the bridge.

 

[Christopher]

^Err, not every scene has to be on the bridge. And not every romance has to be within the crew. And lots of movies show things that happen in private between their characters.

 

[BillJ]

^Err, not every scene has to be on the bridge. And not every romance has to be within the crew. And lots of movies show things that happen in private between their characters.

I'm not interested in the writers going overboard with relationship drama but thought Spock/Uhura was handled nicely in Into Darkness. So if they can slip something into the background without interrupting the flow of the plot, I say go for it.

 

[Franklin]

^Err, not every scene has to be on the bridge. And not every romance has to be within the crew. And lots of movies show things that happen in private between their characters.

I'm not interested in the writers going overboard with relationship drama but thought Spock/Uhura was handled nicely in Into Darkness. So if they can slip something into the background without interrupting the flow of the plot, I say go for it.

+1

 

[drt]

I'm wonder, how would many of you react if they were to make one of the TOS characters gay?

Very positively if it were Uhura...

But seriously, I'd be fine with it in principle -- although they'd probably have to be bi, because every character was shown at least expressing an interest in the opposite sex. (Sulu never actually had a proper love interest, but he mooned over Mudd's Women and was affected by the Taureans in "The Lorelei Signal." Oh yeah, and he managed to have a daughter at some point.) Still, maybe there's a reason McCoy's marriage didn't last? Or maybe Sulu and Chekov's friendship isn't entirely platonic after all? Either of those would make sense.

I'd be OK with Sulu, most of the examples above (you forgot Ilia had an effect on him as well) could be explained as something that affected the male aspects of his biology, and Demora could be adopted (which oddly enough, almost makes more sense).

It could also serve as a little wink at Takei, who since coming out seems to be a pretty good ambassdor for the LGBT community.

I also had the lulzy thought that when his boyfriend is briefly glimpsed, he's played by Kal Penn.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

I'm wonder, how would many of you react if they were to make one of the TOS characters gay?

Very positively if it were Uhura...

But seriously, I'd be fine with it in principle -- although they'd probably have to be bi, because every character was shown at least expressing an interest in the opposite sex. (Sulu never actually had a proper love interest, but he mooned over Mudd's Women and was affected by the Taureans in "The Lorelei Signal." Oh yeah, and he managed to have a daughter at some point.) Still, maybe there's a reason McCoy's marriage didn't last? Or maybe Sulu and Chekov's friendship isn't entirely platonic after all? Either of those would make sense.

I'd be OK with Sulu, most of the examples above (you forgot Ilia had an effect on him as well) could be explained as something that affected the male aspects of his biology, and Demora could be adopted (which oddly enough, almost makes more sense).

It could also serve as a little wink at Takei, who since coming out seems to be a pretty good ambassdor for the LGBT community.

I also had the lulzy thought that when his boyfriend is briefly glimpsed, he's played by Kal Penn.

Or simply have Sulu be more flexible with his sexuality. That would avoid canon contradictions and still have him with a boyfriend.

 

[Last Redshirt]

This is probably the one instance where I'll quote Picard, from the episode "Who Watches the Watchers:"

Horrifying. Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? NO!

There aren't any Christians in Star Trek because they've all moved beyond the 'dark ages of superstition, ignorance and fear.'

Sounds more like Picard's being smug as usual rather than 'no Christians/religious people.' Wasn't there a Christian-like wedding in TOS? I very much doubt all of humanity has no religion.

 

[mendelin]

I'm wonder, how would many of you react if they were to make one of the TOS characters gay?

It would be perfect, if "they" could show romantic relationship between Kirk and Spock. It could be bold, fresh and long-waited story. The real gift for fans.

 

[xavier]

I'm wonder, how would many of you react if they were to make one of the TOS characters gay?

It would be perfect, if "they" could show romantic relationship between Kirk and Spock. It could be bold, fresh and long-waited story. The real gift for fans.

Huh?

Fans? you mean a loud minority of female fans?

Do people really dance around the idea of people seeing kirk and spock in a sexual relationship?

I doubt many trek fans will go for that considering how when startrek.com held a poll on this issue 83% of fans said kirk and spock do and should not have a sexual relationship.


A lot of female fans have dance around the idea but they are a minority in overall star trek opinion. Sorry but I cannot see kirk and spock in a relationship that is sexual, that is the equivalent of seeing:

Aragorn and Legolas (Lord of the Rings)

Han Solo and Luke Skywalker

Xavier and Magneto

Joey Tribanni and Chandler Bing

Seeing all this guys have a sexual relationship would be weird and just wrong especially when you take into account how women play in a huge romantic role in their lives despite the bromance.


I can not see these men including Kirk and Spock abandoning women to go and have sex with each other. that is just out of character especially when you consider Kirk's obsession with beding every girl he meets.

Spock seems to have a level head with women and it add an extra dimension to his character when he gets attracted or falls in love with one,

Anyone remember Zarabeth from TOS?

AOS Uhura from Star Trek 2009?

I believe Kirk and Spock being in a sexual relationship should remain in slash fanfictions written by mostly women fans for other women fans.

I honestly don't think it belongs in a real cannon trek story. I will hate for a trek script to read like a fanfic.

I also want to say this to people especially the female fans in fandoms. Look, It is possible for two men to be best friends and it does not mean they need to start having sex each other or should enter an affair.

I find it odd how girls always read sex into every male best friends relationship especially when this girls are fully aware that this men have girlfriends or at least married to women.

I have heard a lot of marvel female fans say Tony Stark should have a romance with Steve Roggers.

So what of Pepper Potts? the woman Tony is in love with? what happens to her?

I seriously do not understand this logic by female fans someone help me.

 

[mendelin]

I'm wonder, how would many of you react if they were to make one of the TOS characters gay?

It would be perfect, if "they" could show romantic relationship between Kirk and Spock. It could be bold, fresh and long-waited story. The real gift for fans.

Huh?

Fans? you mean a loud minority of female fans?

Do people really dance around the idea of people seeing kirk and spock in a sexual relationship?

Do people really dance around the idea of people seeing gay-relationship in Star Trek movies?

"Oh, please, make Sulu a gay! What? Demora? Oh, no problem, she is an adopted child."

"Oh, please, make McCoy a gay. Married? Oh, well... Maybe he is bi? And... that divorce... Yup! He is the best candidate for gay character!"

What a nonsense!

There are NO gay-characters in the TOS-crew (original one).

Why do we need gay-character in nuTrek?

I seriously don't understand it. Someone, help me.