Simon Pegg, Doug Jung To Write Star Trek 3

[BillJ]

I'm hoping for a good story just like anybody else.
But I admit that finally getting some onscreen LGBT diversity in on screen Trek is important to me. Obviously I'm capable of enjoying an all cis heterosexual cast in a movie, but it's still a bonus if Trek can finally leave the outdated gay erasure behind them.
I don't guess anybody has heard any commentary from Pegg or anyone else about that? I'm not familiar with Pegg's other writing, has his other screenplays included LGBT characters?

Ohh I hope not.

What does it matter as long as the movie is good?

 

[JWPlatt]

I'm hoping for a good story just like anybody else.
But I admit that finally getting some onscreen LGBT diversity in on screen Trek is important to me. Obviously I'm capable of enjoying an all cis heterosexual cast in a movie, but it's still a bonus if Trek can finally leave the outdated gay erasure behind them.
I don't guess anybody has heard any commentary from Pegg or anyone else about that? I'm not familiar with Pegg's other writing, has his other screenplays included LGBT characters?

I would actually hope there is no advance commentary on any such characters and then be pleasantly surprised if such characters are present. To me, this would be more effective in two ways. One, it would avoid the inevitable degree of disappointment that advanced comments would undoubtedly induce (because, you know as well as I do, there will be loud expressions of disappointment based on unmet expectations, regardless of how the characters are presented and handled). Two, a lack of advance commentary would reinforce the idea that such characters are an organic and integral element of the setting--a far more useful presentation than any kind of heavy-handed 'ooh, look, it's the token "gay couple"' that would likely result from any attempt to "make a point". Trek had plenty of opportunities to "make a point" on this matter back when it would have been truly "progressive" or "cutting edge". By now, it would be far more compelling to make the presence of any LBGT character(s) as "matter of fact" as possible.

Yes. 10% of the Enterprise crew, or any crew, or any sample population anywhere, is in fact LBGT and it simply is not remarkable enough to make a point of it because having long been accepted as normal it is no longer a political or social issue in the future of Star Trek. It's just part of the tapestry. Prove me wrong.

I think up to 10% is the general representation in our population, but use whatever percentage you like. And who knows about alien cultures.

 

[M'Sharak]

I'm hoping for a good story just like anybody else.
But I admit that finally getting some onscreen LGBT diversity in on screen Trek is important to me. Obviously I'm capable of enjoying an all cis heterosexual cast in a movie, but it's still a bonus if Trek can finally leave the outdated gay erasure behind them.
I don't guess anybody has heard any commentary from Pegg or anyone else about that? I'm not familiar with Pegg's other writing, has his other screenplays included LGBT characters?

Ohh I hope not.

You knew better than to do that, and did it anyway. One warning to you; comments to PM.

 

[CorporalClegg]

knows about alien cultures.

The Enterprise crew visits the pastel world of Fabulousia.

 

[Mudd]

Yes. 10% of the Enterprise crew, or any crew, or any sample population anywhere, is in fact LBGT and it simply is not remarkable enough to make a point of it because having long been accepted as normal it is no longer a political or social issue in the future of Star Trek.

Why make a point of it? Why not just include some gay characters - you know, like they've included straight characters.

 

[BillJ]

Yes. 10% of the Enterprise crew, or any crew, or any sample population anywhere, is in fact LBGT and it simply is not remarkable enough to make a point of it because having long been accepted as normal it is no longer a political or social issue in the future of Star Trek.

Why make a point of it? Why not just include some gay characters - you know, like they've included straight characters.

Damn. That sounds almost logical! It would never work.

 

[borgboy]

I'm hoping for a good story just like anybody else.
But I admit that finally getting some onscreen LGBT diversity in on screen Trek is important to me. Obviously I'm capable of enjoying an all cis heterosexual cast in a movie, but it's still a bonus if Trek can finally leave the outdated gay erasure behind them.
I don't guess anybody has heard any commentary from Pegg or anyone else about that? I'm not familiar with Pegg's other writing, has his other screenplays included LGBT characters?

I would actually hope there is no advance commentary on any such characters and then be pleasantly surprised if such characters are present. To me, this would be more effective in two ways. One, it would avoid the inevitable degree of disappointment that advanced comments would undoubtedly induce (because, you know as well as I do, there will be loud expressions of disappointment based on unmet expectations, regardless of how the characters are presented and handled). Two, a lack of advance commentary would reinforce the idea that such characters are an organic and integral element of the setting--a far more useful presentation than any kind of heavy-handed 'ooh, look, it's the token "gay couple"' that would likely result from any attempt to "make a point". Trek had plenty of opportunities to "make a point" on this matter back when it would have been truly "progressive" or "cutting edge". By now, it would be far more compelling to make the presence of any LBGT character(s) as "matter of fact" as possible.

I completely agree.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Yes. 10% of the Enterprise crew, or any crew, or any sample population anywhere, is in fact LBGT and it simply is not remarkable enough to make a point of it because having long been accepted as normal it is no longer a political or social issue in the future of Star Trek.

Why make a point of it? Why not just include some gay characters - you know, like they've included straight characters.

I have no problem if any character happened to be gay, but I just don't think they need to go out of their way to make a point that a character is gay simply for the sake of including a gay character. I would be OK if they could somehow seamlessly include a line of dialogue or two that indicates a character is gay -- but the "seamlessly" part of it is difficult to pull off, but it can be done.

For example...Let's say a screenwriter originally writes a script that includes a male minor character who happens to make mention of his wife. If they then go back later and change that line to be "husband", then that would be seamless.

I say that is seamless because the writers originally felt the need to include the line about that minor character's wife anyway, so changing the word to "husband" isn't forcing a gay character into the script for the sake of doing so; it's just changing a word.

 

[BillJ]

Yes. 10% of the Enterprise crew, or any crew, or any sample population anywhere, is in fact LBGT and it simply is not remarkable enough to make a point of it because having long been accepted as normal it is no longer a political or social issue in the future of Star Trek.

Why make a point of it? Why not just include some gay characters - you know, like they've included straight characters.

I have no problem if any character happened to be gay, but I just don't think they need to go out of their way to make a point that a character is gay simply for the sake of including a gay character. I would be OK if they could somehow seamlessly include a line of dialogue or two that indicates a character is gay -- but the "seamlessly" part of it is difficult to pull off, but it can be done.

For example...Let's say a screenwriter originally writes a script that includes a male minor character who happens to make mention of his wife. If they then go back later and change that line to be "husband", then that would be seamless.

I say that is seamless because the writers originally felt the need to include the line about that minor character's wife anyway, so changing the word to "husband" isn't forcing a gay character into the script for the sake of doing so; it's just changing a word.

I'm doubtful we'll ever see a gay character in Star Trek. Paramount/CBS has always been very conservative with the franchise. They don't want to offend the military sci-fi people that buy models.

 

[JWPlatt]

Yes. 10% of the Enterprise crew, or any crew, or any sample population anywhere, is in fact LBGT and it simply is not remarkable enough to make a point of it because having long been accepted as normal it is no longer a political or social issue in the future of Star Trek.

Why make a point of it? Why not just include some gay characters - you know, like they've included straight characters.

How do you know the mind of every person who appears in the frame of a movie? Those people could be anything. That's what I meant. And it would be unremarkable in their world. It's likely that if you were to interview a crew member and ask them "How much of your crew is represented by LGBT individuals?" or "What is your female STEM representation on this ship?" having long gotten past those issues, they would quiz you why you even find it important.

But what you probably mean, and would ask, is to put the focus on a particular person or persons of various orientations. The focus being actual spoken lines and story specifically involving such issues of today. Star Trek is indeed known for doing such things. In a story about a time when those things are unremarkable, wouldn't it be out of place to make it an issue? Or would you use aliens who are still stuck in the thinking of our times to give them a lesson in morality (and thereby the audience)? Or it could be a Zen thing where it is seen and represented but not a plot or story issue, which I think would be the best way to go about it. But again, how do you know the people you are seeing are not L, B, G or T unless there is a scene of a sexual nature? Is that appropriate to a PG-13 film? So maybe they'll kiss or hold hands for PG-13. But if they're bi, there's really no way to tell unless they say so or are put into a situation that demonstrates it. The point being that if they are all part of a tapestry, why would it or should it stand out at all?

 

[eyeresist]

Yes. 10% of the Enterprise crew, or any crew, or any sample population anywhere, is in fact LBGT and it simply is not remarkable enough to make a point of it because having long been accepted as normal it is no longer a political or social issue in the future of Star Trek.

Why make a point of it? Why not just include some gay characters - you know, like they've included straight characters.

We know Kirk, Spock and McCoy like women, but there's no indication either way for the rest of the crew (or Khan).

I've been reading the story on new rumours for ST3.
http://www.filmdivider.com/8704/the...ots-of-new-women-to-a-bryan-cranston-villain/
Sounds good - maybe so good it's just some fanboy's invention?
A female president: I can see Marina Sirtis in that part, but then it might depend how the character is used. I'm guessing McCoy's wife will be some noted comic actor, but you never know. If Cranston is in it, maybe he'll be used better than he was in Godzilla?

 

[Mudd]

How do you know the mind of every person who appears in the frame of a movie?

Remarkably enough, I know the orientation of a lot of the straight characters without having to read minds.

Can you guess why?

No looking at your neighbor's paper.

 

[JWPlatt]

Remarkably enough, I know the orientation of a lot of the straight characters without having to read minds.

Can you guess why?

Without obvious displays of affection or desire, no, not really.

And other than your avatar image having an uncanny resemblance to Jeffrey Epstein, I don't know what the newspaper reference means.

 

[Kruezerman]

Bless your heart.

 

[borgboy]

Most of the characters will display some evidence of heterosexuality, a slight interest in the opposite sex somewhere, some piece of dialogue establishing a past heterosexual relationship. There's a lot more evidence of heterosexuality than people might think. Most people just take heterosexuality for granted that they don't notice those little things. It's only when something homo comes up do they notice it and judge it by a different standard.
We also have established heterosexual orientations for all the classic characters from the original series and people will naturally assume the reboot version will be the same - which is a reasonable assumption.

 

[Mudd]

Remarkably enough, I know the orientation of a lot of the straight characters without having to read minds.

Can you guess why?

Without obvious displays of affection or desire, no, not really.

No "without" about it - straight characters in Trek engage in obvious displays of affection and desire.

Wonder why these hypothetical gay characters that you've invoked for the sake of argument don't?

 

[Yellowstone]

I was so glad to hear Orci won't be writing this one, or his buddy, can't recall his name. All I know is they are terrible writers. The last movie especially was just garbage. Good acting, directing, effects, etc, but no story at all. So many things did not make logical sense.

 

[JWPlatt]

Lindelof is the name you're looking for. I have my nits to pick with the film, but "garbage" and "no story" is hyperbolic absurdity. Perhaps you are confusing the film with some videos recently posted to YouTube.

 

[eyeresist]

No, I'd agree the story was the big problem with STID.

BTW, it occurred to me recently, did they make the "suicide bomber" near the beginning mid-Asian looking to compensate for Khan not looking Indian at all?

 

[Nerys Myk]

No, I'd agree the story was the big problem with STID.

BTW, it occurred to me recently, did they make the "suicide bomber" near the beginning mid-Asian looking to compensate for Khan not looking Indian at all?

Noel Clarke's character??

I don't think so