A Gay Character in Star Trek 2?
2 min readAlthough he hadn’t really given thought to the issue, J.J. Abrams is open to the idea of a gay character in Star Trek 2.
Star Trek has always been considered to be progressive and groundbreaking, but there has never been an identifiable gay character, although there were stories which dealt with homosexuality in an oblique way.
Abrams confessed to being surprised that during the years of the televised Star Trek, that there was never a gay character in any of the shows. “You know what’s funny? As someone who was never a huge Star Trek fan and I didn’t watch the shows,” he said. “And my experiences with the movie was the first series and then watching and re-watching some of the movies that I’ve seen. I’m frankly shocked that in the history of Star Trek there have never been gay characters in all the series. In Deep Space Nine and all the Enterprises that that’s never come up.”
According to Abrams, it’s a bit trickier to have a gay character in a movie than in a television series, due to the time and story limitations. “Where in a movie when you got those two hours, it usually is a broader stroke thing, and the question is how do you do it in a film that doesn’t feel like you’re shoehorning in something that has meaning to you in a piece of entertainment that doesn’t otherwise have room for it,” he said. “So that’s the trick. So honestly I’m stunned that it’s not been something that’s been overtly, you know, dramatized. What an ideal opportunity on one of those shows to have that be an ongoing storyline.”
But now that he’s aware that of the lack of gay characters, will Abrams do something about it for Star Trek 2? “Well, thank you for bringing this up for me,” he told AfterElton, “because honestly this was not in the list of my priorities to try to figure out how to make this movie in the best possible way. But it will now be in the hopper. And it’s one of those things I’ll bring up with the writers next time we meet.”
About The Author
Why does sexuality even have to come into question?
Sounds to me like Abrams is going to even further ruin the ‘reboot’ by forcing random gay commentary in it for no real reason.
It doesn’t have to be a commentary. It can just be acknowledgement that gay people exist.
Why am I not surprised? You know, for every Star Trek fan that wants this, I promise there is at least as many that don’t. It’s never happen before becuase the gay narrative was never strong enough to force itself in without a fight. They didn’t need to however anyway, there were plenty of “gay” themed stories over the years (think Dax) without being blunt about it. “Star Trek” has, when it is at it’s best, been more subtle with it’s messages.
I may be wrong but JJ sounds a bit sarcastic in that last quote.
Also Lost? No gay characters. Alias? No gay characters. Fringe? No gay characters. Even Felicity I think was light on them, and only had them in stereotypical ways like Javier.
I think Roddenberry said once that there were gay characters in Star Trek. They were just crew and officers, and it was never part of the story because it would not be an issue in the future. everyone would be accepted and this difference would not be pointed out. The differences were oh, Spock has green blood and humans are irritating. Who someone falls in love with will be a non-issue by Trek time.
Yeah, I think that’s a load of bullcrap to be honest (his quote, not that you posted it).
I could buy it if they allowed some ambiguity in some main characters… but they always, always showed the characters as straight.
Even a bit of “Well, we’re not going to say they’re gay but wink wink, there’s some possibility” would be welcome.
It’s a bit like having no one black on the Enterprise in episodes, and the defence being they are there… just not in shot, somewhere else.
Ah yes, the “gay” themed stories.
You have had to have been a man before to love a woman.
You have to be an evil mirror-universe murderer to be bisexual.
You have to be Borg to maybe be a bit gay.
Well with stories like that, let’s fly the rainbow flag!
Please, no.
Oh would you people just grow the hell up?
Well, why am I not surprised by this development? I mean, it wouldn’t be Hollywood if they weren’t pushing their liberal agenda… global warming, social equality, gay rights.
I’m a die hard Star Trek fan, even after realizing most of Star Trek’s theme’s were hardcore leftist themes. But I enjoyed the fact that the theme’s (including homosexuality) were always obscure and left to the viewer’s interpretation.
I think Abrams was the best thing that happened to the Star Trek movie franchise in a long time, but I will be most dissapointed and will refuse to see the film were it to make explicit references to homosexual themes.
It’s ironic that a genre created to represent all persons, now feels that it has to elevate on social group over another. What a shame.
Yes, so difficult to include gay characters in a movie. Because it’s not like movies constantly shoehorn unnecessary romantic subplots into stories that don’t need them. How hard is it to make it be same sex romance? That isn’t even gay commentary, that’s simple acknowledgement.
After that last awful movie, I wasn’t too likely to see the next one anyway. But I seriously hate “checklist” writing. “Okay, we’re going to have a gay character in this movie just so we can say we did,” has about the same resonance with me as “Okay, we want people to take this movie seriously, so lets arbitrarily kill off a major character with little thought, twenty minutes in.”
How do people who are completely creatively bankrupt like this manage to keep getting work?
Umm… so, a nod to a gay or lesbian relationship, which I’m assuming will take all of 15 seconds of screen time, is “elevating” one “social group” over literary hundreds of hours of screen time depicting heterosexual relationships in all of Star Trek?
Please get some perspective.
The problem is Abrams is making a point about something that is not important. Who the fuck cares? Its like having a retard on the bridge because retards do exist. Not saying they’re the same but the logic is similar. I don’t watch star trek to debate the formalities of sexuality. I say leave it out. Sex scenes will always be around but its not what Trek fans want and I doubt its what Gene Roddenberry had in mind.
You know. Being gay is pretty rare. Its not common. Having sex heterosexually is normal. Why would anyone get offended that rarities haven’t shown up yet? Scientifically homosexuality is classified as a disorder but society refuses to deem it as such.
I don’t mind to see a gay character in this movie…you’re right…why people should care about others sexual orientation? I have a friend that is a very good businessman even if he’s gay ans he’s known on the top rated gay sites….
By the 24th century no one will give two hoots,
Who cares? In Roddenberry’s vision of the future human beings are tolerant and enlightened so that this issue should no longer exist in that future… Already that vision was diluted by Abrams: StarFleet was an organization of professionals, scientists, and ST11 has shown that it’s also full of bullies that would rather get drunk and get into fights than resolve issues in a rational manner… Sex, romance? There should not be a place for this them in ST12, except perhaps for the Spock-Uhura relationship that would be relevant to character development… I hope Orci and co are reading all these comments!
I for one won’t rest until bestiality is graphically depicted in a Star Trek movie.
Wow! Where did you get your facts? From Dr. Phil? Last figures I read is 10% of people are looking for a same-sex partner. Please quote and identify your scientific source please… If you love Star Trek then you respect science and facts, so do I…
If a gay character is introduced then that will end my support of Star Trek forever and I guarantee you there will be thousands that will end their support also. I won’t see the movie nor buy it, I will end all support for Star Trek and it’s products so if J. J. really cares he will keep the status quo. We all know gays exists, it doesn’t have to be shoved down our throats everytime you turn on the tv.
It’s about execution. Yes it could be a character coming out, or some other story.Well no, that’s not right for a Trek movie. But acknowledging they exist? Hardly shoving down throats.
And if you end your support of an entire franchise just because a group of people is featured, whether it’s black, gay, bald, Hispanic… well, I think that says a lot about the person.
Who knew so many Trek fans were ignorant bigot scumbags? I think Trek will do just fine without worthless trash like you.
“In Deep Space Nine and all the Enterprises that that’s never come up.”
Ya know, the bisexual Intendant, not to mention Dax and her ex-wife would be surprised to hear that. JJ, try not to speak where you know not of.
Every time you turn on the tv there is a show that has gays in it.enough is enough, why saturate our society with a lifestyle like that. Yes, is says a lot, that I have morals and stand up for what I think is right.
And us who stand up for morals not having that lifestyle forced upon us every time we turn on the tv, will do just fine without that franchise.
That is because heterosexual is normal.
We all know they exist. They are on almost every tv show there is.
What has being gay go to do with morals? You get good gays and bad gays. You should be sticking up for moral behaviour from everyone.
Almost EVERY show. Wow. Just like they exist in almost EVERY town and city.
QED.
I’ll shove something down your throat,,,bigot
I have been a “Trek” fan since 1978. I have books, videos, toys, uniforms, and all kinds of collectable “stuff”. I tell this just to emphasize I AM A TREK FAN.
I have reluctantly tolerated things like cursing and sex scenes in the past, however if it comes to this, it will be the last straw and I will be forced to break ties with Star Trek.
Guys, don’t hang a lantern on it. That’s a writing issue, not a social issue.
How is a gay person appearing on screen worse than cussing or sex? That implies gay people are wrong somehow?
who cares! no one wants to point out the obvious, george takai is gay. now really did all the diehard trekkies stop watching when they found that out? everyone’s getting worked up about something that isn’t going to happen anyway. if their is a gay character and it is important to the story then fine, great! but if it’s thrown in there just to satisfy some sense of political correctness then no. i feel the same way about sex scenes in movies. people are trying to kill you and all of a sudden you start going at it, yeah that happens all the time. if i was gay and they put in a gay character just to get the “gay audience” i would probably be offended. however, back in the sixties when uhura and kirk had a little liplock that was shocking to american society. jump forward to 2011 and most shows have a inter-racial couple, and nobody’s screaming about that. i’m sure that alot of people were not happy about the spock and uhura relationship in the last movie. spock is half human the whole idea of that slipped right past the narrow minds of the 60’s. my point is that it is fiction, it is entertainment and you people are ready to fight to the death over it. watch the movie and if you don’t like it then don’t watch it again, and you can blast it on the internet.
Ah, typical..can’t think of anything intelligent to say so you resort to name calling..so typical. So intolerant even though tolerance is what is expected of others.
Exactly, so why does it have to be acknowledged over and over as if it is something new.
Uhhh… Lost had a couple regular characters who were openly homosexual; Boone & Tom Friendly. As well as other secondary characters who were openly homosexual or implied to be homosexual, along with MANY other characters whose sexuality was never addressed because it had no bearing on the story!
And where did you get your 10% figure from, Mr. “Identify Your Sources”? My University-level Advanced Sociology textbook put homosexuality in men at 1-2% of the population and homosexuality in women at 2-3% of the population. About 5 minutes of searching REPUTABLE sources gets you the 2-3% figure over and over again. I would say that 2 in 100 or 1 in 50 meets the definition of rare.
Since the natural biological directive of all living beings is to reproduce, and since reproduction in higher order mammals and primates requires heterosexual intercourse, then heterosexuality is by scientific definition, the normal, and deviation from this in the form of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc., by definition is abnormal.
That statement is not a moral judgment on the behavior whatsoever, it is simply a matter of scientific fact. Twisting science, one way or the other, does nothing to advance your argument.
Totally agree
The reason there’re no gays in the 23rd/24th century is because they’ve found a cure for it.
Yes George is gay and if he wants to be that way then that his up to him. But they did not make him gay in the show and that is the way it should be.
It is a chosen lifestyle. I know MANY people who chose to be gay to turn against their families and embarass them and after a few years they chose to go back to being heterosexual, sadly one of them died of Aids. So called medical facts they say it is something you are born with are funded by gay groups and the only brains they have examined have been infected already by HIV. But you won’t see that in mainstream media. It is a chosen lifestyle, even indicates that in the bible.
Which is why I never watched it. I don’t watch and support gay shows or shows with open gays. Star Trek New Voyages did that and lost a big following.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say you’re probably an American. Only Americans quote the Bible as a source of scientific fact with a straight face.
Pretty sure you have your percentages the wrong way around.
Well maybe you should leave this one alone…..
Yep I am and it seems like due to numerous experiments and testing, scientific fact is following the bible. Think what you want, normal is normal and the chosen gay lifestyle is not normal.
Firstly, you don’t know who wrote the bible. If I gave you a book tomorrow and said it was a lost bible and you had to follow it, you wouldn’t. But you think because a lot of people think something then it must be true.
Secondly, nothing wrong with being gay – it’s God’s wish. After all he designed us all. If you’re saying that God does bad work, then you are blasphemous. God has made us how he wants us to be.
Really, who the hell do you think you are to question God?
Wow, homosexuality has been written off the DSM (the diagnosis bible shrinks use) back in 1973. Check it out instead of statings as facts your own beliefs.