Orci talks about Star Trek 3

Who's the one calling it a reboot? No one from the franchise, no one actually involved in the creation of these films, calls it a reboot. Only random people on the internet call it that.

 

Very good news, even if expected, given how STID ended.

Although I suspect this will be unlike a TOS story, and Earth might get involved in their deep-space adventure over comm channels. There is always something cool in featuring future Earth locations and I'd miss them. Unless the planet where they are having the adventure offers enough to make up for that. But Earth locations can still serve as a nice counter-point, and a way to highlight Kirk and crew are on their own. Nothing says trouble like the whole of Starfleet gathering to discuss a transmission they've received from the Enterprise.

This brings me to wondering will they revisit an old TOS story. Romulans and MU are unlikely, given that we've already done a heavy Romulan/Alt reality story. Time travel and Earth can also be scratched now, so that rules out whales and the Guardian of Forever. That leaves us with the Doomsday Machine, Klingons and Tholians that could be revisited. I hope they steer clear of Talosians and Organians (too magical), although Errand of Mercy can be an exciting remake, as trolling Kirk and the Klingons is something I don't mind seeing. And it particularly fits a narrative where Enterprise finds itself alone in another risky situation where a war with the Klingons could erupt and there's a panic brewing at home at what Kirk might do this time.

Whatever. Speculation sucks. Deep space is cool.

 

This reminds me of that tweet Simon Pegg posted years ago regarding ST'09: "Some scenes may take place in space"

 

Nice.

That tweet tempts me to make a random prediction. ST3 will have an original story, but we'll see mother Horta in the intro.

 

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/star-trek-3-director-open-gay-character-not-necessary270614



A gay character that is both open and is integral to the plot is ‘not necessary’ in Star Trek 3, according to the director.
Roberto Orci has spoken about the follow-up to the adventures of the USS Enterprise, last seen in Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013).
But even though the film will take place over 200 years in the future, Orci said he has doubts we will ever see a character having a same-sex relationship.
‘It can be part of a character and not be the whole shebang,’ he said on the Humans From Earth podcast.
‘It doesn't have to be like South Park, like “what have we learned today”.
‘It can be so normalized that it just exists. I agree it can't be shoe-horned in. And it is not necessary for it to be the whole point of the thing.
‘It is an ensemble and there is lots of people to represent so no one point of view should hog it.’
- See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...necessary270614#sthash.hss0YjzK.S4sf4sXh.dpuf

 

I actually agree with Orci on that. It would be very forward to just portray a gay person no differently than hetero characters, that it's so casual by the 23rd century that nobody bats an eye over one's sexual orientation. Maybe casually throw in a reference that the character went out with someone of the same sex awhile back. If this were a TV series with a new set of characters, it would be much easier to do more. As it is now, they'd have to bring in a guest character and find a way to make it feel organic with the story. There's already so many characters to play with now.

 

Okay, that article is completely misrepresenting Orci's words. He did not say it was "not necessary" to have a gay character. He said it was "not necessary for it to be the whole point of the thing," i.e. that they could include a gay character without the character's gayness being their sole reason for being in the story. So the article basically claims he's saying the opposite of what he's actually saying, and that's lousy journalism.

 

Gotta get those internet hits!

 

I'm still left with the impression that there will be no gay characters included.
The things Orci is directly quoting - that being gay wouldn't be the whole point of the thing - who ever asked for that? I don't expect a gay character's gayness to be the central point any more than Uhura's race should be a central point.
I just can't believe it's 2014, the third movie in this 21st century reboot is being made, and still there will be no gay characters. I'm not advocating changing the orientation of any established characters, but there will surely be new characters in the movie besides the main characters. His quote about no one point of view hogging it - what the what? Even a token of diversity would hardly be "hogging it", and a good writer and director can do diversity well without "shoe horning it in", and should be able to be diverse without making it an after school special issue. Trek on movies and tv has such a long history of erasure and invisibility to LGBT character, and to learn that this has been deliberately decided to be continued, it is hurtful. His comments about gays being normalized in the 23rd century, that sounds interesting. Why not do something with that? It wouldn't take more than seeing a gay male couple in the crew holding hands as they pass Kirk and Spock, or Uhura commenting that she'll miss her mothers anniversary party while on their mission, something like that can be done organically. Normalized does not mean invisible.
I am really upset and angry about this right now. I feel like as a gay man I'm unwelcome in Orci's movie right now. I feel like as a gay man I've always had to fight to find my place in Star Trek, something that I love. The tv shows and movies over the years I hoped would evolve to be true to their message of diversity, but they haven't, and I feel let down by this. The novels have been much more welcoming over the years, I want to acknowledge that, that's something I really appreciate and value. But really, it's past time the movies did better with this. Other than their failure with diversity I've loved the new movies and the new cast. I want to be excited about the new movie, and I'm sure I'll come around, but today I'm pretty down about this.

 

To me, what Orci's saying sounds a lot like the philosophy of those of us who write Trek novels. We have included quite a few gay, lesbian, and bi characters in the books, not because we want it to be the whole point of the thing, but just because we feel it makes sense to include characters who have those sexualities as one aspect of who they are. In other words, it's "so normalized that it just exists," just as Orci said. So I don't agree with you that Orci's words suggest he plans to continue the exclusion. If anything, it might suggest that he plans to include a gay character and simply not have it be a big deal in the story. He's not ruling it out, he's just discussing what the right way to go about it would be. Which is the sort of discussion you'd have when you are actually thinking of doing something. No, it doesn't prove he will include a gay character, but it certainly doesn't disprove it.

I really don't understand why you're jumping to that conclusion. You conceded earlier that it's just your impression, and impressions can be wrong. We won't know for a fact whether there will be a gay character or not until we know a lot more about the movie than we know now. So it's best to reserve judgment.

 

Thanks for talking me down Christopher. The article is taking a negative look at things, maybe I let that influence my feelings on this.
There is this though

"But even though the film will take place over 200 years in the future, Orci said he has doubts we will ever see a character having a same-sex relationship."

I think the finality of that statement, the "never" of it really hit me wrong. Even trying to look at this in the best possible light, that doesn't sound good.

 

But that is not something Orci himself actually said. It's the article writer's spin on Orci's words, and we've already established that the article writer misinterpreted or misrepresented Orci's words. You should always, always mistrust reporters' paraphrases of what their subjects say, and focus strictly on what's actually inside the quotation marks. Here's the entirety of the actual quoted statements:

I see no way to interpret that as saying "he has doubts we will ever see a character having a same-sex relationship." What he's saying is that it shouldn't be a big statement and shouldn't be the only thing that defines the character or characters, that it should be treated as just a normal facet of a character. Now, that last sentence does feel like it's hedging a bit, but frankly I think the reporter was imposing their own agenda and expectations rather than responsibly reporting what was actually said. Competent journalists used to know better than to impose their editorial slants in their reporting, but competent journalism is largely dead on this country, especially on the Internet.

 

I agree the quoted comments do sound much more positive than the rest of the article. I will try to reserve judgement until I learn more.
I have to admit, on this subject I've learned to be disappointed. JJ made comments about wanting to include a gay character and nothing came of that. Enterprise was supposedly going to include a gay character, possibly even in the main cast, and nothing came of it. I have a whole lot of years invested in this issue, so it probably is easy for me to get wound up over it.

 

They're not against including a gay character, but I wonder if they're not jumping onto it because they'd then feel obligated to try to make some kind of statement, put emphasis on that character which would mean taking time away from the main characters. Maybe they fear merely introducing a character that just happens to be gay but not have the story be about that would be seen as not having the courage to go for it, merely just throwing a bone.

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.

 

This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It's merely a popularity contest. The "main" reality is whichever one the fans like best.

 

The idea is simply to provide a justification for the narrative conceit of a new timeline that nonetheless has a lot in common with the original one. And as I explained, there is some merit to the idea that the majority of timelines would tend to converge toward the most probable configurations and thus resemble each other in broad strokes. Although in practice, the movies have insisted on some rather improbable coincidences and circumstances to get the same crew together years too early, so it's not as good a justification in this case as Orci likes to say.

 

I was thinking the same thing, that one of the crew could easily be bi. I'dlove if it were McCoy!

 

I believe it is the Hollywood norm to have a gay character in all their films and tv. If star trek 3 is going to have a gay character, it should be for the sake of the plot and not for the sake of him being there because of his sexuality.


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.

 

You're not wrong about the second part, but, no, that really is not the norm at all.