GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Star Trek, Into Gayness

by

Star Trek XIII or III Depending on How You’re Counting Director Robert Orci said in some kind of nerdchat forum that he’s open to the idea of putting a gay character in the next Star Trek film.

Orci: It can be part of a character and not be the whole shebang…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. [Phrasing! Boom! – Ed.]  And it is not necessary for it to be the whole point of the thing. It is an ensemble and there are lots of people to represent so no one point of view should hog it.

Kind of like the relationship between Gaeta and Hoshi on BSG, although that seemed, frankly, a bit gratuitous and pandering to the gay audience. But it didn’t really have any impact on the story, which is as it should be.

Frankly, I’d rather learn more about that cyborg guy on the bridge in Into Darkness than see a couple of redshirts gaying it up.

Comments

  1. I always figured the cyborg-crewmember was from Mudd’s Planet — or it’s equivalent. Star-Trek never was very-good at picking up the pieces of continuity in the episodic versions. They introduce species, planets and characters and you’d never see them again in the Federation-universe — even though you knew they’d have to have made an impact on Federation society or Star Fleet’s culture.

    Couldn’t actually be Mudd’s Planet since they had Harry Mudd’s spaceship in the hanger bay, so it would be too-soon for the Mudd’s Planet androids to be openly in Star Fleet from the old time-line.

  2. Why not just a plain old cyborg? Maybe tissue regen didn’t work?

    (Aside, the timeline is really screwed up. The only series that is ‘intact’ is Enterprise, and even then, Enterprise was an altered timeline because of First Contact. Or the ‘real’ timeline is that Cochran never flew, and the Federation was never formed, and First Contact established a stable time loop… which was broken by the reboot.)

  4. It is obvious that homosexuality is very ugly, something that is attractive does not need this continuous advertising and propaganda machine heavy push.

  5. It’s only important since under the Acolytes of Roddenberry, “gay” was never to be mentioned, hinted-at or shown. It got very tedious after three-decades…

    There’s a basic continuity-flaw as James Tiberius Kirk is mentioned as his father’s only-son in the reboot — which makes him “George” on the old-series.

  6. Color me confused. What makes a lone character gay? How are we informed of his “gayness” unless he is “different” from the others? Which makes me question whether an “ensemble” is incomplete without a leper or Down Syndrome character or idiot savant.

  7. There were some gay references in the Star Trek episodes and perhaps one or two outright allegories for gay characters.

    In Deep Space 9, Dax was the creature living in a host called Jadzia Dax, a female, but she was a man previously. The gender switch was confounding to the captain who knew him as a male.

    There were also other Dax episodes (not Jadzia Dax) and the gender switch made romantic relationships difficult and ultimately unsuccessful.

    The things about romantic relationship with Star Trek is that they are either nerdy or alien or macho with Captain Kirk. Shoehorning a gay character isn’t out-there since it can be within the context of exploration. How about a human male with an alien male?

    As much as I enjoyed the older series, the reboot didn’t do anything for me. They are getting further away from the original story-line and the featuring of gays is irrelevant and possibly detrimental.

  9. Actually I liked the way they handled Jadzia/Dax. I enjoyed how the actors portrayed if they felt more affinity to Dax (Sisco) or Jazia (Bashir, Kira, Worf)

  10. According to some academics and universities, there are 72 gender permutations – just here on Earth. I think Star Trek will regret it if they do not have one of each as characters.

  11. The problem that I have as a sci-fi fan is that I require well-written characters first and if they’re gay, then that’s cool – but they have to be good characters. If you throw in a character that’s gratuitous, I will rightly mock you.

    I’m not a fan of the JJ Abrams school of cinema regardless and I’ll probably see the new Trek reboot film, I’ll be prepared for disappointment.

  13. First, i agree with you regarding the character it would be interesting to learn more about.

    But beyond that, I really don’t think that a lot of folks are ready for anything more than what Orci proposes. A couple holding hands or embracing is one thing — even Sulu and Chekov as a romantic couple. But are most folks ready for a scene that is equivalent to the one in the Star Trek: The Reboot where Kirk and Uhura’s Orion roommate are going at it? Dare I say “probably not”.