Orci talks about Star Trek 3

[borgboy]

My point was that having a black woman be one of the astronauts in the future was inspiring, not they there was merely a black woman in the cast.

My whole point is that her inclusion wasn't driven by plot considerations. So I think it is disingenuous for some to claim that a gay character should only be there if he/she serves the plot.

I agree. I HATE that argument, since characters are straight all the time without it serving the plot. It's a double standard, and clearly meant to limit how often and how gay characters are used. And of course, if the character's orientation does serve the plot, then the haters will complain that there's a gay story.
Diversity should be the norm because it would reflect real life and the audience. What is artificial and off putting is the lack of diversity, how overwhelmingly white, male and straight most shows and movies are. It's all too common, for example, out of a cast of 5 leads to have four men and one woman, who of course is there to be a love interest.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

My point was that having a black woman be one of the astronauts in the future was inspiring, not they there was merely a black woman in the cast.

My whole point is that her inclusion wasn't driven by plot considerations. So I think it is disingenuous for some to claim that a gay character should only be there if he/she serves the plot.

No arguments on that.

 

[xavier]

My point was that having a black woman be one of the astronauts in the future was inspiring, not they there was merely a black woman in the cast.

My whole point is that her inclusion wasn't driven by plot considerations. So I think it is disingenuous for some to claim that a gay character should only be there if he/she serves the plot.

I agree. I HATE that argument, since characters are straight all the time without it serving the plot. It's a double standard, and clearly meant to limit how often and how gay characters are used. And of course, if the character's orientation does serve the plot, then the haters will complain that there's a gay story.
Diversity should be the norm because it would reflect real life and the audience. What is artificial and off putting is the lack of diversity, how overwhelmingly white, male and straight most shows and movies are. It's all too common, for example, out of a cast of 5 leads to have four men and one woman, who of course is there to be a love interest.

There has to be a love interest(although I wont limit uhura to just a love interest) she is one of the people that made it into the Enterprise for her brains and not because of her romance with Spock.

Romance is by default just part of every fiction because romantic relationships are the most important relationships of all. romantic and sexual relationships is the only way we humans exists and are born (minus rape or incest or child sexual abuse who are born into harsh circumstances) and all of those are crimes.

It is only natural that when men and women are together romantic feelings and sexual attraction begins to develop. this is why all films have romance and love interests regardless of their genre. it is that way because it represent the realist part of our society and we human beings. Trek is no stranger to that.

 

[BillJ]

There has to be a love interest(although I wont limit uhura to just a love interest) she is one of the people that made it into the Enterprise for her brains and not because of her romance with Spock.

Romance is by default just part of every fiction because romantic relationships are the most important relationships of all. romantic and sexual relationships is the only way we human exists and are born (minus rape or incest or child sexual abuse where are born into harsh circumstances) and all of those are crimes.

It is only natural that when men and women are together romantic feelings and sexual attraction begins to develop. this is why all films have romance and love interests regardless of their genre. it is that way because it represent the realist part of our society and we human beings. Trek is no stranger to that.

None of this addresses the core issue of a portion of society being completely ignored by Star Trek. It makes Star Trek look like a relic of another age. Star Trek has been coasting on a reputation of being forward looking and inclusive for a really long time.

I'm straight, but I can understand a group of people that want to be recognized by the entertainment they spend their money on. Gay folks buy movie tickets. They buy dish soap and rent hotel rooms and finance cars just like everyone else.

Unless Star Trek (CBS/Paramount), can begin to recognize the changing nature of our society, it will become a more distant memory every day that passes. Star Trek will simply fade completely from the public consciousness and become the sole provenance of old, Christian white guys and will die out completely when they do.

So it is simply time that those that make Star Trek recognize the changing face of society.

 

[mos6507]

I don't think the stewards of the Trek franchise have any interest in progressive attitudes about gender/sex.

So get ready to be disappointed.

 

[Christopher]

On Uhura, nobody's saying her presence wasn't important. But for the sake of giving credit where it's due, it's worth pointing out that, despite Roddenberry's self-generated hype, there were other '60s shows that included black characters earlier than TOS and quite a few that handled them better. Uhura was important, but so were Alexander Scott, Barney Collier, and others.

My whole point is that her inclusion wasn't driven by plot considerations. So I think it is disingenuous for some to claim that a gay character should only be there if he/she serves the plot.

I agree. I HATE that argument, since characters are straight all the time without it serving the plot. It's a double standard, and clearly meant to limit how often and how gay characters are used.

And this is just what I think Orci is saying -- that if there is a gay character in the movie, they shouldn't be there just to be gay as a plot point in itself, but should have some other meaningful role to play in the story, so that they're included organically and not as a token. In the same way that Uhura is there to be the communications officer (and Kirk's gadfly and Spock's romantic partner) rather than to be the black woman, or the way that Sulu is there to be the helmsman and badass fighter rather than to be the Japanese guy.

And it's encouraging to me that Orci sees it that way -- assuming, of course, that he really wants to put it into practice and isn't just talking a good game.

 

[BillJ]

I don't think the stewards of the Trek franchise have any interest in progressive attitudes about gender/sex.

So get ready to be disappointed.

You could've just as easily used a snap of the couple times we've seen Pine in his underwear. I don't honestly see how someone in their underwear is a conviction of someone's attitudes towards sex?

I think it says more about the people complaining than anything else.

 

[Ovation]

I don't think the stewards of the Trek franchise have any interest in progressive attitudes about gender/sex.

So get ready to be disappointed.

You could've just as easily used a snap of the couple times we've seen Pine in his underwear. I don't honestly see how someone in their underwear is a conviction of someone's attitudes towards sex?

I think it says more about the people complaining than anything else.

+1

 

[Mudd]

I don't think the stewards of the Trek franchise have any interest in progressive attitudes about gender/sex.

Easily more than Gene Roddenberry did, if only for reasons of demographic appeal, which is why Uhura is now a character central to the stories instead of a glorified extra.

 

[Borgminister]

Orphan Black has done the most (I've seen) in incorporating an openly (and flamboyantly) gay character--and it has worked, despite some winces certain scenes have evoked from me.

Not sure that kind of frankness could work on a new Star Trek show though. That truly would not be your father's Trek...

Edit: off topic, sorry...

 

[BillJ]

Not sure that kind of frankness could work on a new Star Trek show though. That truly would not be your father's Trek...

I think subtlety would be key in dragging Star Trek kicking and screaming into the 1990's.

 

[Christopher]

Orphan Black has done the most (I've seen) in incorporating an openly (and flamboyantly) gay character--and it has worked, despite some winces certain scenes have evoked from me.

Well, a flamboyantly gay character and two sweetly lesbian characters. And the various gay characters the main one sleeps with. And a transsexual man who likes other men. And a body-modification fetishist or two. They're pretty inclusive about alternative sexualities.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't think the stewards of the Trek franchise have any interest in progressive attitudes about gender/sex.

So get ready to be disappointed.

You could've just as easily used a snap of the couple times we've seen Pine in his underwear. I don't honestly see how someone in their underwear is a conviction of someone's attitudes towards sex?

I think it says more about the people complaining than anything else.

+1

++1

 

[Opus]

You could've just as easily used a snap of the couple times we've seen Pine in his underwear. I don't honestly see how someone in their underwear is a conviction of someone's attitudes towards sex?

I think it says more about the people complaining than anything else.

+1

++1

+++1

To be quite honest, I have never understood the big deal about this. I've seen women in their underwear before. I've seen more risqué shots in a Sears catalog. And I've seen more scantily clad women in TOS.

 

[Christopher]

The issue isn't that she was in her underwear, the issue is that she was totally gratuitously in her underwear, just a random bit of pandering that didn't serve the scene or the story in any way. Okay, it was a way of setting up sexual tension between Kirk and Carol, but it was a rather sophomoric and random way of doing so, and one that was more about male gaze than about any kind of emotional, interpersonal bonding between them.

 

[Opus]

:Yawn!:

Seriously.

 

[BillJ]

The issue isn't that she was in her underwear, the issue is that she was totally gratuitously in her underwear, just a random bit of pandering that didn't serve the scene or the story in any way. Okay, it was a way of setting up sexual tension between Kirk and Carol, but it was a rather sophomoric and random way of doing so, and one that was more about male gaze than about any kind of emotional, interpersonal bonding between them.

Which is right in keeping with Star Trek. People act like this is the first time we've ever seen scantily clad women in Star Trek. Or are we seriously going to try and say that Sherry Jackson's camel toe and Marina Sirtis' nipples were serving the plot? Star Trek has always had a voyeuristic streak.

Honestly, I'm amazed at the standards that Abrams and Company are held to in comparison to other Trek creators.

 

[Destructor]

Honestly, I'm amazed at the standards that Abrams and Company are held to in comparison to other Trek creators.

Because it's not the 60s (or the 90s) anymore and standards have changed. That's like taking down a critique of racism by saying: "Well Gone With the Wind wasn't held to that standard and that's one of the greatest movies of all time!"

Yes, TOS had some dodgy gender politics. So did TNG. That doesn't mean we have to be beholden to those dodgy gender politics for the rest of time. The shot was pointless and gratuitous and objecting to people who point that out is equally pointless.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I don't think the stewards of the Trek franchise have any interest in progressive attitudes about gender/sex.

So get ready to be disappointed.

You could've just as easily used a snap of the couple times we've seen Pine in his underwear. I don't honestly see how someone in their underwear is a conviction of someone's attitudes towards sex?

I think it says more about the people complaining than anything else.

The difference is that the camera never lingers on Kirk's pine tree.

The issue isn't that she was in her underwear, the issue is that she was totally gratuitously in her underwear, just a random bit of pandering that didn't serve the scene or the story in any way. Okay, it was a way of setting up sexual tension between Kirk and Carol, but it was a rather sophomoric and random way of doing so, and one that was more about male gaze than about any kind of emotional, interpersonal bonding between them.

Which is right in keeping with Star Trek. People act like this is the first time we've ever seen scantily clad women in Star Trek. Or are we seriously going to try and say that Sherry Jackson's camel toe and Marina Sirtis' nipples were serving the plot? Star Trek has always had a voyeuristic streak.

Honestly, I'm amazed at the standards that Abrams and Company are held to in comparison to other Trek creators.

Don't pretend fans never had complaints of the way Trek handled this kind of stuff in the past. If Trek wants to sex things up, they could do a lot better than reach lows of BAYWATCH titillation. Remember the complaints of ENTERPRISE and the crew oiling up each other with the cameras lingering on their bodies? It was tacky then, still is today.

A better example of Trek playing with sex appeal is when Saavik is wearing a robe with her hair down in the turbo-lift. She didn't need to flash her boobs or anything.

 

[plynch]

In nuTrek, I thought Uhura was gonna really play a part in defusing things with Klingons. All she is is girlfriend-of-Spock so far.

As for homosexuality, Why don't they have a romamce subplot involving one of the characters and someone of the same sex, a guest star say; and everyone in the movie doesn't think anything of it, just like hetero romances are always accepted? The gayness wouldn't be a plot point, the romance would. That could be a tv ep, I guess; not gonna happen in a summer blockbuster funding the corporate shareholders.