George Takei: Now Is Time For LGBT Character In Star Trek + Tried To Convince Roddenberry |
jump to navigation

George Takei: Now Is Time For LGBT Character In Star Trek + Tried To Convince Roddenberry July 13, 2014

by Staff , Filed under: History,Star Trek Beyond,TOS,Trek Franchise , trackback


George Takei has revealed that he tried to convince Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry to add a gay character to the TOS movies. More details below.

Takei Talks LGBT and Star Trek

Star Trek introduced the concept of “Infinite Diversity In Infinite Combinations” and was lauded for breaking barriers in terms of gender and race from it’s beginnings in the 1960s, but to date it still has not introduced a LGBT character. In a new interview with PrideSource, Star Trek’s original Sulu, George Takei, says he thinks the time is right, and he went on to say that he tried to convince Gene Roddenberry to do it decades ago. Here is the exchange…

PrideSource: Do you think we’ll ever see an out LGBT human on “Star Trek”?

Takei: I think now it’s high time. I did very quietly bring up the subject to Gene Roddenberry when we were starting our movie series – our feature film series – and he said with television he had to walk a very tight rope. You know, we were dealing with issues at that time – the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, the Cold War – and that episode where Kirk kissed Uhura, a white man kissing a black woman, that was blacked out in all of the Southern states: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. Our ratings plummeted!

(Gene) said he knows that the LGBT issue is a civil rights issue, but he had to keep the show on the air as a television series, and if he pushed the envelope too far he wouldn’t be able to address any of the issues. He’d be canceled. Same thing with feature films now: bigger budget, higher risk. And he had said he’s predicating a 23rd century when the LGBT issue would not be an issue, but it is an issue of our times that we’re dealing with metaphorically in terms of science fiction and he wants to deal with it and still be able to make movies. He had said he hopes for the time that he will be able to do it.

Alas, Gene passed. It was in ’91 that he passed, and we’re 20 years-plus from that time. We’ve advanced with unimagined speed, and I think now it is high time “Star Trek” deal with the issue of LGBT equality. Now there are “Star Trek” actors who are out. Zachary Quinto, who plays Spock in the reboot, came out, and I am out. With the two of us out, it is now safe for “Star Trek” to deal with LGBT equality.

Takei at Seattle Pride Parade July 10, 2014 – actor says time is now for LGBT character in “Star Trek”

The issue of introducing an LGBT character into Trek been debated for a long time. In 1987 “Trouble With Tribbles” writer David Gerrold tried to break the barrier with an episode titled “Blood and Fire” for the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation but it was rejected due to the controversial nature – leading to Gerrold leaving the show (he would eventually use a reworked version the script for the fan series Star Trek Phase II). The possibility came up again a decade later during the later seasons of Star Trek Voyager, but again it never made it to air. By the time the franchise went off the air in 2005, gay characters had become common on network TV, which may be why writer/producer Brannon Braga has since expressed regret over how Trek was not “forward thinking” on this issue.

As for the new movie era, director/producer JJ Abrams actually expressed surprise that Trek never had a gay character and said he was open to it, but it didn’t happen in either Star Trek or Into Darkness. For his part writer and expected director of the next Star Trek film has also said he would like to see it happen.

Trekking Around The Issue

While Star Trek has not had an explicitly gay character (in filmed canon), the franchise has skirted around LGBT and gender issues in a number of episodes. For example, TNG’s “The Outcast” had an androgynous race that shunned anyone who expressed one gender of the other. The below scene shows the allegorical nature of plot, dealing with acceptance of gender identity.

And the symbiotic Trill race has offered the opportunity to explore the issue. In the TNG episode “The Host,” Beverly Crusher falls in love with a male Trill, but after he dies and the symbiont is transplanted into a female host, Beverly ends the relationships because she felt her ability to love was was too “limited.” A similar situation happened in the reverse in the Deep Space Nine episode “Rejoined” when Jadzia Dax was re-united with an ex-lover who was now in a female host. The show portrays rekindling relationships with new hosts as taboo in Trill society, but Jadzia and the now female Lenara can’t fight it and kiss.

There are more examples, including the bi-sexual version of Kira Nerys in Deep Space Nine’s mirror universe.  And of course DS9’s Quark had some experience with gender re-assignment surgery in the light-hearted episode “Profit and Lace.” Enterprise also ventured into LGBT territory with a more serious approach, with the allegory storyline about the 22nd century Vulcan taboo on mind-melders and how some contract a fatal (AIDS-like) disease.

So Star Trek has got close, but has yet to cross that line.

POLL: Is it time?


Should 2016 Star Trek Movie Have Human LGBT Character?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


1. SmittyTrek - July 13, 2014

Here’s my question, and I’ll probably get slammed for this…is there a ‘need’ for a gay character, or is just putting one in there the purpose?

2. AL - July 13, 2014

I don’t see an issue with it at all. People are human first. All this crap about sexuality. High time the world grew up. Star Trek should’ve been thed first to break ground with this.

3. Paul - July 13, 2014

Homosexuality is mainstream these days. Nearly omnipresent in the contemporary media. Commonplace. Boring. No longer interesting.

Star Trek is famous for breaking the borders, not for doing stuff everyone else already did.

4. Eodeon - July 13, 2014

Takei is wrong about one thing. Now isn’t the highest time. That was twenty years ago. Now seems more like too late. But better late than never, so yes, of course it would be good to see this probably the greatest flaw of Star Trek finally patched in the next movie, though I don’t believe that would happen. I predict that more “pragmatic” approach will prevail in the end as far as this topic is concerned (no, “issue” is not the word), as always. And after all, since the release of fan episode “Blood and Fire” on Phase 2 I consider it “patched” already, since it seems no less professional than any given official episode and it’s extremely well written.

5. Richard Blanchard - July 13, 2014

I am a gay man, and I think shoe-horning an LGBT character into a storyline is ridiculous. Andy Mangels took an on-screen movie character and gave him a background as a gay man in an accepted and loving relationship in one of his Section 31 books, and it was great. It felt natural and organic to the plot of the novel.

They could just show something like that so that we see how natural it is.

6. KNorked - July 13, 2014

I hope so, I’m sick of the heterosexual agenda in all the Star Trek TV shows and movies ;)

7. Pro gay Trek - July 13, 2014

@SmittyTrek – I will counter your thought with this.

Is there a “need” for a straight character?

I think the best practice is to make a gay charactor or couple but not focus on it. Like everyone is saying, it’s normal now. So just have a charactor and maybe there’s just a scene where they are having a couples dinner and just leave it at that. No need for a romance though because I feel it would create unneeded spectical. Unless it was a cutaway scene like Kirk and the cats. Romance in scifi with almost always ruin the movie for me.

8. CmdrR - July 13, 2014

IF it makes sense, fine.
PLEASE do not stop the action of the movie to show a gay kiss. Something subtle would do just fine. You know how Trekkies pick apart every detail.
Blood and Fire with the gay love scene was just too much, IMHO.
Anyway, I really don’t think gay characters are a “thing” anymore. Those barriers are down, thanks to the ever hungry-for-shock-or-novelty network TV. “Modern Starfleet” would just seem like another copy.

9. IDIC Lives! - July 13, 2014

#1 Smittytrek

“is there a ‘need’ for a gay character, or is just putting one in there the purpose?”

I think we view this upside down. As Robert Kennedy said, “Some ask why, I ask why not?”

Thus, there should have been LBGT characters all along, organically fitting in as other crew members fit in.

But there were not.

This does not mean, therefore, that we must not “shoehorn” them in. Better late than never to correct this discrimination, so write them into Trek nufilms and whatever other Trek endeavors, as organically as possible.

Then soon it will be simply natural as all sexual aspects of Trek always have been. And the characters will be simply trek characters, unique and often intriguing.

I suppose the problem is, the writing is not great on the nufilms in general. Thus an organic assimilation might not seem as graceful and as well-done as if nutrek had better writing.

10. Ryan - July 13, 2014

Takei is one self-absorbed persona. He bashes past co-workers when he has the chance, makes a big deal out of Khan being played by yes, a white Brit, and it’s non-stop, in your face “LGBT” agenda.

Let me say this, my best friend since the age of 7 is gay, and not only does he not carry on and on and on and on about his beliefs, he also feels Mr. Takei just goes way overboard with this agenda, etc. This “in your face” stuff gets unbelievably carried away. It’s OK to have different beliefs, that’s what Trek was about, but when someone takes it to an extreme it loses its luster in my opinion.

Lastly, interviewing him years ago was one of the worst experiences I’ve ever had interviewing someone over the phone– he was rude, pompous, and simply not understanding in the least bit as I’d just returned from an overseas deployment.

Nuff said.

11. Curious Cadet - July 13, 2014

@1. SmittyTrek,
“is there a ‘need’ for a gay character, or is just putting one in there the purpose?”

Why would you get slammed for that? Perfectly legitimate.

There is no NEED for a gay character, or a black one, or a female one. The color and gender of a character only matters depending on what you need the characters to do. If you need a love interest for Kirk, then you have to decide whether he’s gay or straight and create accordingly. But Uhura and Sulu are examples of characters that did not need to be black or Asian, but instead the purpose was just putting one in there. Just like Chekov didn’t need to be Russian. The point was putting one in there.

So the point is likewise putting a gay character in there, to reflect the diversity and tolerance of the future of our society in the grand tradition of Trek, and help open doors for social injustices that plague us today. Considering gay marriage as a civil right is at the forefront of social politics today, now is the perfect time to introduce such characters, just as it was for a black, Asian and Russian character 50 years ago.

The problem with a gay character is it isn’t obvious what you’re doing. When they made Number One a woman in The Cage, it was obvious what they’d done — to the horror of the network, they put a woman in a top level position. Outside of Kirk, Star Trek in particular isn’t particularly concerned about the romantic lives of its characters (except of course Nu-Spock & Uhura). So how are you gonna know a random character is gay unless you shoehorn in a situation to demonstrate this which probably doesn’t have much to do with the story. And no offense to anyone, but I just don’t see any Trek movie including a gay relationship as a germane element. There’s barely enough time to tell us about Kirk and Spock. We got a little more of Bones and Scotty, but almost nothing on Sulu, Chekov. And Uhura is Spock’s girlfriend, so she’s already clearly defined. Introducing a new character important enough to get into his orientation seems like a stretch when we haven’t even learned much about the core group — and now we have Carol Marcus!

The place to have introduced a gay character was TNG. They could have had a gay family on board and shown that such situations were neither harmful, nor disruptive, as well as gay relationships are more than just anonymous hook ups. But trying to do it in a movie is not going to be very satisfying. Unless you “convert” one of the existing characters whom we care about learning more without necessarily driving the plot. Carol Marcus could turn out to be gay, and would be a fun way to shut that shipboard relationship down between her and Kirk. But I feel that might be a bit too stereotypical. Sulu is a candidate. Kirk could try to set Sulu up with a cute girl, and he could confidently state that he’s into men. There is canon that Sulu has a daughter, but I don’t think it was ever shown he had a wife and not a husband; and of course different universe, different genes. Chekov too would be a good candidate since it’s so obvious this isn’t the same character from the Prime Universe.

But to add a random redshirt we’re supposed to care about to the extent we need to know his orientation, is a lot to ask, just to address a social concern. Then again, if a redshirt is killed on an away mission, and we meet his boyfriend whom Kirk has to console after losing the first man under his direct command, that might make for a meaningful moment that serves the story and the cause. Then keep that character around from film to film. Maybe that character is Hendorff … I mean why not? Better that than a gay Kirk-like character which only perpetuates the stereotype.

12. Daniel - July 13, 2014

That scene from “The Outcast” is powerful stuff. “The Host” also dealt with the issue in a powerful way. I’m open to a gay character in Star Trek but it should serve some meaningful purpose.

13. Scottamer - July 13, 2014

I do not think that making a big deal about a gay character would fit into Star Trek at this time when this topic is so mainstream. It would feel forced. However, I think a small allusion to the new Sulu being open to both sexes would be kind of fun and an interesting tribute to George Takei without taking the established heterosexual nature away from the Sulu character. I could imagine a rather fun, slightly naughty scene with the new Sulu making a comment about a person or relationship that suggests he is bisexual.

14. Lemingsworth Bint - July 13, 2014

They could do it in a summer blockbuster if they’re a bit subtle with it. For a tv series, they could be as blatant as they want.

15. dswynne - July 13, 2014

I thought Lt. Hawke (from “Star Trek: First Contact”) was suppose to be the gay character? And isn’t Dax (from “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”) suppose to be “omni-sexual”? Anyway, if an official gay character is introduced, it most likely will be female, since seeing two females kissing is not as threatening as two males kissing. In fact, it’s more or less a fetish for a lot of straight males in American society.

It’s interesting that this subject has been brought up before, and the usual answer as to why they are not any homosexual characters in Star Trek is due to the Eugenics War (circa 1990s), which wiped out “undesirables”, including homosexuals, by Augments and other fascists. But that’s just fan speculation, and nothing more. Hopefully, if a gay character is introduced, he or she will not be relegated to being a stereotype, which is also a problem when depicting minority and women characters in television and film.

16. Thorny - July 13, 2014

Richard… was that Malcolm Reed?

17. Themanle1 - July 13, 2014

I think there should be a gay character, but it would be great if it was handled in a way that doesn’t really bring attention to it in a negative or obvious way. For example, in an interview with Patrick Stewart about his bald head, someone asked why he had a bald head. They believed that they would have fixed baldness in the future. He replied by saying, that in the future, nobody would care. Nobody would care about it, and that we have evolved past such things. It would be great if in the next film the same kind of thing happened. They don’t have to make a big thing of the LGBT subject, just acknowledge that we have moved past it being an issue, and move on. Maybe they are in the lounge of the enterprise, playing 3D chess in a scene, relaxing, and there is a gay couple enjoying a drink. Kirk could look over as he walked in the room, saw them, and moved on, I don’t think this should be the issue that it is.

18. IDIC Lives! - July 13, 2014

As I said before but apparently the comment was deleted or lost???
As Robert Kennedy said, “Some ask why, I ask, why not?”

So it is not a matter of “why” “shoehorn-in” a LGBT character(s), it is a matter of:

This should have been done years ago, but as George T. explains, there were reasons why not, like staying on the air.

Now, good writing (if it can exist) will bring in LGBT characters naturally, organically, on the Enterprise. Star Trek always has had a natural way of dealing with human sexuality, but this philosophy needs to be expanded to include all.

If it turns out to be awkward, it is because of bad writing but even at that, LGBT characters should be introduced and then can “settle in better” in the next installment of Trek.

19. sad - July 13, 2014

Gene never had a gay character in trek because Gene believed homosexuality was wrong. it is plain and simple.

Also I am tired of Hollywood’s gay agenda. why do they keep pushing and forcing homosexuality on people?

men and women were created to be compatible with each other.

the fact that George wants a gay character for the sake of it is ridiculous.

Homosexuality is wrong and is a sin before our creator who made us male and female for compatibility, to grow and to reproduce.

20. CmdrR - July 13, 2014

3 – Yep. Let’s hit em with hot Kirk-on-Gorn BDSM.

21. CmdrR - July 13, 2014

I had another comment, but it’s gone now.

Was saying it should be something that’s just there… not something that distracts from the main plot. And NO, don’t make one of the main characters LBGT, because that is not who they’ve been for 50 years.

Mainly, this issue is a non-issue. “Modern Family” beat Trek to it. “Modern Starfleet” would seem like a gimic.

22. Trekboi - July 13, 2014

It’s Simple, Straight People.
YOU are in Star Trek, YOU have a Place in Genes Vision of Star Trek’s 23/24th centuries so YOU don’t get it.
I am GAY, I want to see myself in that future, just like African Americans like Whopee Goldberg did & Asian people did & hell, the Russians probably did before Chekov ect ect.

It’s not about a GAY Storyline or even character, there only has to be one line somewhere to establish it.
They could have done that in The Outcast or Cogenator or Rejoined or the other trill episode, just stating that humanity has homosexuals & they once had similar issues in the Past.
it’s about having a presence- having GAY people in the future.
WE are 10 Percent of the population- How many crews have we seen of all Straight Characters?

Not having any LGBT Characters is like Saying it was a problem that was fixed, or an illness that was cured on the way to genes utopia.
NO we should be included as Part of it
That is a unconscionable suggestion.

23. Trekboi - July 13, 2014

8. IDIC Lives! – July 13, 2014

Your right, we shouldn’t be justifying why- it’s a matter of Why Not.

24. WalkingAlmostDead - July 13, 2014

Wait. What? You mean Kirk and Spock aren’t gay after all? Seriously, I have nothing against introducing gay characters into the Star Trek Universe, and this is coming from a disillusioned fan. I think they should have done that with Sulu in the reboot, as a tribute to Takei, in his iconic role. Homosexuality is not going away. It’s a fact. It does not need any justification. You don’t have to like, there are lots of things we all don’t like, just don’t fight against it. It’s a fruitless battle, that makes you unhappy. Damn, now I have to google what LGBT means. Showing my age here.

@ 9. CmdrR – Ouch!

25. Captain Smithwell - July 13, 2014

Wasn’t the power of having Uhura as a bridge officer the fact that no one ever pointed out that she was black? The strength of the show was that they lived in the future where humanity has learned that all people were equal. They never did an episode that pointed out that Uhura was black as a plot point because it would’ve defeated the purpose. Even the famous groundbreaking “kiss” never was an issue in the show. Kirk kissing Uhura was entirely unremarkable to those characters.

Why does everyone seem to think that there has never been a gay Starfleet officer just because we haven’t seen one kissing another on screen? Is it so hard for people now to accept equality without having it explicitly pointed out? I haven’t looked expressly for it, but it wouldn’t surprise me if even in the first season of TNG you could find two male Starfleet officers holding hands in the background of a shot as they walked down a corridor. Trek has always had that ethos.

26. IDIC Lives! - July 13, 2014


“Star Trek is famous for breaking the borders, not for doing stuff everyone else already did.”
Sexual preference is not “stuff somebody already did,” it is–human beings have the right of sexual preference, now and in the future.

NuTrek sure isn’t famous for breaking any borders or setting any heights. But that’s another subject–

27. NX01 - July 13, 2014

You know MR. SULU the character was not gay. George is gay, good for George. I feel this issue is constantly being rammed down our throat.
Star Trek is almost 50 years old, which means you have an older community that is not comfortable with LGBT. You risk alienating that audience.
Why do we have to keep bringing LGBT issues into star trek.
That is not what star trek is about.

28. Corylea - July 13, 2014

It would be SO easy to have this in the next movie without its being a big deal. They’re going off on a dangerous mission, and Uhura kisses Spock, Carol Marcus kisses Kirk, and some guy — maybe Chekov? — kisses Sulu. All the partners are worried about their lover going on the dangerous mission, and they all express it in exactly the same way. It doesn’t have to be a big, close-up moment, just a shot of all three at once being kissed — two straight, one gay — before they walk onto the transporter platform.

29. Curious Cadet - July 13, 2014

@13. Scottamer,
“I think a small allusion to the new Sulu being open to both sexes would be kind of fun and an interesting tribute to George Takei without taking the established heterosexual nature away from the Sulu character.”

Not being argumentative, but seriously where was Sulu ever established as heterosexual? I don’t recall a single moment where he even looked at a woman, much less dated one.

@25. Captain Smithwell
“They never did an episode that pointed out that Uhura was black as a plot point because it would’ve defeated the purpose.”

They made a big deal out of it in the Lincoln episode.

@27. NX01,
“Why do we have to keep bringing LGBT issues into star trek. That is not what star trek is about.”

Wrong. That is what Star Trek is all about. Not specifically LGBT issues, but what those issues represent in our society. That group is oppressed and being denied essential civil liberties worldwide. Uganda makes being homosexual punishable by death. NOW more than ever Star Trek NEEDS to show a future where the LGBT community is not a subsection of society, but rather an equal part of that society, without the need to be organized into such groups as necessary today to fight for basic human rights guaranteed to most heterosexuals throughout the world. THIS is at the core of Trek’s philosophy.

30. Jemini - July 13, 2014

spock and uhura’s baby could be a gay man or a transgender person and captain a future enterprise in a new series or movies

( whoa I put two gutsy things in one shot LOL I’m impressed)

31. Jemini - July 13, 2014

didn’t JJ said that one of their ideas for stid that they couldn’t use was something about implying the sexuality of one of the characters?
I wonder what he meant but I assumed he was talking about Scotty, Sulu, Chekov and McCoy as in the article they mentioned that, so far, only S/U have some space for personal stuff but perhaps the writers had ideas for the other characters too and hoped to implement those too in future movies.

I think it all depends on the way a story is structured. The second movie for example was massively focused on Kirk and I didn’t like it
Even Spock, who seemed to be his equal protagonist in the first movie, seems to get HARDLY the chance to have scenes that are just about him and if you don’t read the comics you might not even truly get all the nuances of that scene between him and Uhura and why she was angry. Plus, what happened to Vulcan is too much ignored. I get that they might If you think about that, then how could the other characters get any character development if even one of the supposed protagonists didn’t get the time to fully deal with his personal arc?

There are so many characters and it’s difficult to introduce new ones now when you hardly have the time to develop the existing characters. For example, while I’m glad to have one more female character (Carol) I’m also worried about her being yet again another character to develop in too little screentime and I fear that the quantity will sacrifice the quality of the existing main characters that are already underdeveloped. I’d rather see more of McCoy, Uhura, Scotty and Chekov BEFORE being introduced to someone new.

I can say that perhaps the writers could try to make the movie more an ensemble thing too. But I also recognize that the screentime is limited and I imagine that as much as they might have tons of ideas for all the characters they just can’t always find the time in the movie to show/develop them. It’s not a tv-series.

32. mikey1701A - July 13, 2014

I’m a gay man and I think while it would be nice to include an LGBT character in to Trek, I don’t want one shoe horned in for the sake of political correctness. Ive seen the Blood And Fire Phase II episode as well as a lot of the Hidden Frontier series and the LGBT stories just seem to put in for no other reason than an excuse to go “look, we have gay characters, how controversial!”. The love scene in Blood And Fire was so uncomfortable for that very reason.

33. Cygnus-X1 - July 13, 2014

I would have phrased the poll differently.

For me, it’s not an issue of whether or not there should be a gay character in the movie. If the writers happen to come up with a great character who happens to be gay, then that’s great. Of course, that character would be an asset to the movie.

But simply being gay does not make a character interesting any more than simply being straight makes a character interesting. And with all of the difficulties and constrictions of making a feature film, shoe-horning in characters for the sake of diversity is only going to make it that much more difficult to make a good movie. In a TV series, it’s easier. You can have gay episodes and gay characters, as has been done. I’d forgotten about the Mirror Universe bisexual Kira—another good example of a character whose sexuality served the character well.

But of all the characters in Trek TV and movies—crew, admirals, aliens, etc…—sexuality is not a relevant issue for the vast majority of them. Admiral Nechayev doesn’t introduce herself with, “Hi, I’m Admiral Nechayev and I’m in a committed lesbian relationship.” Her sexuality is not a relevant issue. This does not imply the character to be straight (or gay).

If you’re gay, it might be super cool for you to see someone like you on the screen—Hey, look! That character is gay like me! I’m gay and so is he! Now I feel validated as a person!—but if you’re straight, it’s not all that interesting. OK…why do I care that this character is gay? If there’s no good answer to that question, then is the character likely to be interesting? Or, are we going to get the feeling that his character is simply there to satisfy a quota?

Hey, I’m a half Tongan, half Swedish, half Persian transgendered person in a monogamous relationship with a Brazilian bisexual hermaphrodite…why aren’t there any Trek characters like ME???

34. Keachick (Rose) - July 13, 2014

I do not see why a brief scene could not be shown of a gay couple holding hands, giving each other a goodbye, welcome home kiss, whatever, just as we might see heterosexual couples do in the same circumstances. It is doable, just as other stories are doable, given the will and imagination and open mindedness of audiences.

I think part of the problem is that many object to seeing any kind of PDA – look at the furore some made over Uhura giving Spock a simple kiss when they arrived back safely from Kronos. There were actually people objecting to that brief scene on this site.

The antagonism is already there among many (at least on this site) towards anything that shows humans relating to others in any way that is physically affectionate.

Hell, given the negative attitudes expressed about nuTrek, it is not even safe to be Out as a heterosexual, let alone be Out as a gay, in a minority.

35. Trekboi - July 13, 2014

19. sad – July 13, 2014

Yes, you are a Sad.

29. Curious Cadet – July 13, 201


27. NX01 – July 13, 2014

You have no idea what Star Trek is about.

Gene DID not have a problem with Homosexuality & he DID want a Gay Character in Next Gen but he lost control of the series due to illness & didn’t do everything with it that he wanted.

How dare you insult his memeory by associating him with your Homophobic rubbish.

27. NX01 – July 13, 2014

36. IDIC Lives! - July 13, 2014

What are you on about, Keachick?

You grossly and on purpose, mis-state what has been discussed and explained to you over and over and over regarding relationships in STID.

One more time: It is not the relationships objected to, it is the incredibly bad timing of them, such as the lovers’ heart to heart in the Mudd shuttle. Ridiculous timing! Bad writing, takes the viewer out of the film. Kerplunk.

You certainly have the right to disagree, but you have no right to mis-state what others have meticulously outlined for you regarding their/our opinion. You purposely mis-state over and over again.

Why are you magnanimously giving the gay couple a “brief scene”? Freudian slip? Let’s not give them too much eh?

37. Ahmed - July 13, 2014

I think the writers should be focusing on writing a good story, first & foremost. They should not include a character just to appease to certain groups. Bryan Singer is gay, yet he didn’t include gay characters in X-Men: Days of Future Past.

38. Harry Ballz - July 13, 2014

Keachick, tell me, if someone is “in” and another person “outs” them, does the “in” person have every right to be………(wait for it)………OUTRAGED?

(runs and hides)

39. Cygnus-X1 - July 13, 2014

34. Keachick (Rose) – July 13, 2014

I do not see why a brief scene could not be shown of a gay couple holding hands, giving each other a goodbye, welcome home kiss, whatever, just as we might see heterosexual couples do in the same circumstances. It is doable, just as other stories are doable, given the will and imagination and open mindedness of audiences.

Sure, it’s doable. But that alone wouldn’t make the characters interesting or necessarily justify their inclusion in movie so pressed for time that it can’t even cut away from the wall-to-wall action for an extra minute or two in order to develop a meaningful theme. The Trek has been largely taken out of Trek in accordance with Paramount’s global market research results. If the foreign market doesn’t even want Trek in their Trek, do you really think they’re going to want a gratuitous gay scene?

I think part of the problem is that many object to seeing any kind of PDA – look at the furore some made over Uhura giving Spock a simple kiss when they arrived back safely from Kronos. There were actually people objecting to that brief scene on this site.

I actually agree with you here. I wasn’t among those who objected, but I could have done without that whole sappy scene in the turbolift. Love scenes work better if you build up to them as opposed to just sandwiching them in briefly between non-love scenes. I have a hard time pinpointing exactly why certain love scenes come across as sappy while others don’t. But there is a difference.

40. Nony - July 13, 2014

There are opportunities everywhere. Take the last movie – the parents of the sick little girl could have both been women, for instance, and it wouldn’t have affected the plot whatsoever. In the bar, the girl giving Kirk a flirtatious look could have been a guy instead, and if you don’t want to imply anything about Kirk’s preferences, he could just have smiled and indicated he was politely declining the guy’s advances. You could have a flash of a same-sex couple walking hand-in-hand down the street as Spock and Harrikhan run by, or dancing together in the background in the club where Scotty and Keenser are drinking. Nobody needs to be shoehorned in. They just need to exist.

41. The Keeper - July 13, 2014

Actually I see no urgent need for adding a gay character at this time.
Don’t get me wrong, some of the best people I’ve dated have been gay.
How ever, above all that I think we should aim our collective efforts in getting Paramount to dismiss Orci then hire decent writers and a skilled director.

Just saying.

42. Ahmed - July 13, 2014

There is little to no chance that a Star Trek movie will feature a gay character in any prominent role, and the reason for that is the international market.

More than ever, Hollywood blockbusters depend on the Chinese & Russian markets which bring in more tickets than the domestic market. Adding gay characters will be put the movie at risk of getting rejected by Chinese & Russian censorship boards.

Forbes magazine ran an interesting story about this very issue.


Why We Won’t See A Gay Spider-Man Anytime Soon
By Scott Mendelson

Andrew Garfield made headlines last week by mentioning in an interview that he A) wanted the chance to play Peter Parker as bisexual in the ongoing Amazing Spider-Man franchise and B) wanted “MJ” to be a guy, played by someone along the lines of Michael B. Jordan.[…] But Garfield’s heart, as well as his desire as an actor to explore, is in the right place. It’s also an outright fantasy that will never actually occur.

No, it’s not just because America is still grappling with homophobia and Sony wouldn’t want to lose out on potentially gay-panicky Spidey fans in America. That doesn’t help, but the real obstacle for such a character change lies outside our shores.

China is the second-largest box office terrain outside of America and it may well surpass America as the top market by around 2020. They only play 34 American movies in any given year. China has been the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in overseas box office for awhile now. But in the last few years, we’ve seen studios explicitly tailoring their tent poles to specifically appeal to the Chinese market.

Iron Man 3 contained specifically shot scenes that only played in the Chinese version of the film. The time-travel thriller Looper had additional scenes set in Shanghai edited into its Chinese version. […] Late last year, and this is where this becomes relevant to the headline, they cut 38 minutes out of Warner Bros.’ Cloud Atlas primarily to remove the various homosexual sequences from the time-spanning science-fiction drama.

Today’s blockbusters are so expensive that they have to play in as many markets as possible. We can discuss the disturbing implications of big-scale tent poles fashioned to coincide with the cultural or social mores of whichever overseas territory is considered the biggest at a given moment another time, but the fact still stands that Sony needs those overseas dollars on a project as big as The Amazing Spider-Man 3.

As long as major Hollywood productions have to count on massive overseas grosses just to break even or make a token profit, we will likely continue to see either big-scale blockbusters fashioned to pass censorship muster in China or altered to specifically target the Chinese marketplace purely because they are the ‘big man on campus’ at the moment. A gay Peter Parker might have been plausible in a (much) cheaper Spider-Man film that only needed strong domestic grosses to make money. But with an eye on worldwide blockbuster success and budgets that demand it, Sony just can’t risk it.

43. Chris Roberts - July 13, 2014

“Don’t call me Tiny.”

Could Sulu have been gay in the Original Series?

The closest I come to is racking my brains is for any hetrosexual pursuit he might’ve shown.

The Mirror Universe is passable. His interest in Uhura could be bi.

In “Mudd’s Women”, it’s more Riley commenting on their attractive passengers and how their eyes follow him around the room. Sulu could just be agreeing with that, not that he necessarily reciprocates their attention.

In “The Naked Time” he’s drunk and Uhura as a fair maiden to rescue in his Three Musketeers fantasy couldn’t very well be a fella.

Unless I’ve missed anything onscreen, that leaves us with Star Trek Generations and Demora Sulu. He adopted or got involved in some 23rd Century surrogate pregnancy.

44. Chris Roberts - July 13, 2014

The scene in The Motion Picture where Illa came onto Sulu got cut. It’s not in the Theatrical or Director’s IIRC… and only exists in the extended Tv version.

Question is, would John Cho be comfortable with a scene suggesting this?

45. IDIC Lives! - July 13, 2014

Nony, You are right.

A token gay kiss in the background is a cop-out if that is all there is to be of “gay”. Sure dancing together in a night club in the background but–another token.

There should be an actual character whom we know as much as time will allow, who is developed to a good degree, who is gay. NuTrek could use several new characters and not that droid guy with the “modem” in the back of his head.

It might be effective if we got to know gay characters first as simply characters, and then in conclusion or a bit later, found out they are gay (perhaps even together as a couple?) All sorts of possibilities here that are not just BRIEF TOKEN couples in the background.

These crew members should have been there all along in Star Trek, and now they simply will be (or should be).

Cygnus X1
I didn’t object to the kiss when they arrived back safe from Kronos either. We did have the long discussion recently that Star Fleet officers should not get into deep emotional stuff while in a shuttle over Kronos, with the captain mumbling, “Hey, guys,” and no one pays any attention. That was right before the captain landed all those punches on Khan and didn’t even dent his check. Even genetically engineered people would have a soft cheek. Kahn was portrayed as Superman, not a genetically engineered human–but that’s another subject.

Brave, good characters – who are gay or who turn out to be gay and so what! Not just tokens briefly kissing in the background (but that’s ok too).

46. Scott Gammans - July 13, 2014

@40: Hear hear. I’m is gay as a three credit bill and I don’t need to have the next movie coming to a screeching halt just to shoehorn in something that, frankly, should have been done 25 years ago on TNG. The gay starship has sailed, and Star Trek missed the boat. Show something in the background, and be done with it. Themes like this are best explored on TV, and until Star Trek is back where belongs (on TV), putting a gay character front and center in the movie would be derided as pandering. Unfortunately.

47. IDIC Lives! - July 13, 2014

Chris Roberts,

In the theatrical release Star Trek 5, at the end, both Sulu and Chekov are following around the very tall, muscly Klingon woman, admiring her, until it turns out, she is walking to her Klingon boyfriend.

Does this count?

Nah–I don’t think it does.

Actually, I always assume Sulu is gay when I watch TOS or the films. But of course it is not stated.

48. IDIC Lives! - July 13, 2014

According to what George Takei says, Roddenberry knew LBGT rights to be a civil rights issue but he simply could not risk bringing it up because he was trying to keep Trek on the air and was in trouble with the inter-racial kiss already.

I cannot imagine that Roddenberry would not have been for any group’s freedom to be who they are and to function in Star Fleet.

49. Ahmed - July 13, 2014

@IDIC Lives! & Chris Roberts,

I think you guys are confusing the character Sulu with the actor who played him, George Takei. Hikaru Sulu has a daughter called Demora Sulu who appeared in Star Trek: Generations.

Takei: “It’s intriguing. I’d like to know how I had her. Who her mother is. That’s the thing about doing a long-lasting serialized film or TV series. You really are in the hands of the writers and the other molders and shapers of the series. You make your input and you hope for the best. In my case my input didn’t take too much during the time I was there and I’m so delighted to discover that I was so ultimately productive after the fact.”

50. john - July 13, 2014

I’ve often heard Whoopi Goldberg talking about how she watched Star Trek when she was younger and it was the first rime she saw black people represented in the future. In her own words, she could see that yes, Black people had a future and it was an equal one.
As a gay man, I find it incredibly sad that as I was growing up and watching Star Trek tackling interesting a thought provoking taboo’s and topics weekly that never once was there a direct, straight-forward gay storyline tackled. I don’t personally view The Host or The Outcast or Rejoined as episodes that finally broke the mould. Those episodes were cloaked in metaphor etc. Star Trek has never once tackled the topic head on and I find that very, very sad. As a young gay man watching Star Trek, there was never any gay characters in space. As far as Star Trek goes, we simply do not exist, and for a franchise as progressive as it is, that simple fact is truly upsetting I find.
The time for Star Trek to be forward-thinking in this regard is well and truly gone. It’s 2014 and STILL there has been no important and significant LGBT character in Star Trek’s nearly 50 year history. That is a disgrace.
So is there a need for Star Trek to have an LGBT character any more? No is my answer now. Maybe 20 years ago, but again, that boat has sailed and everyone else has moved on it seems.

51. Curious Cadet - July 13, 2014

@35. IDIC Lives!,
“One more time: It is not the relationships objected to, it is the incredibly bad timing of them”

Yes. Timing and professionalism. Quite frankly, Spock and Uhura’s romantic moments seems to be shoehorned into Trek. It seems completely out of place and forced half the time, and challenges the notion of Starfleet decorum. Did Spock and Uhura have to make out on the transporter pad in front of everyone? No, they could have, and probably should have, done it before Spock became center stage on the transporter platform.

52. Curious Cadet - July 13, 2014

@32. Cygnus-X1,
“Or, are we going to get the feeling that his character is simply there to satisfy a quota?”

It’s not about filling a quota or about putting a character in the movie that some people in the audience can identify with, though it’s important to show that.

It’s primarily about expanding the audiences perceptions of what’s acceptable. Sulu and Uhura broke race barriers. Any woman that did anything beside make out with Kirk broke equality barriers, a Russian as an equal during the height of the Cold War gave us hope, and helped a frightened nation see Russians as people. A gay character likewise demonstrates equality and acceptance during a time when homosexuals are being denied basic human rights, and horrifically persecuted for it in some countries.

I do agree it needs to make sense in context of the story. That’s why I suggested earlier, have one of Kirk’s men (a redshirt) killed during an away mission as a real issue Kirk has to deal with for the first time — the death of one of his men following his direct orders. Then have Kirk address the husband or boyfriend of the man privately. It’s a classic scene, a tear-jerker, and one that will resonate even if it’s a another man, no matter how a person feels about homosexuality. And that’s how you break down the wall’s of intolerance in society.

And I said before, Chekov needed to die in the reactor and Kirk needed to order him to his death, because that is a quality of leadership that Kirk has not faced, and needs to. It would have been far more satisfying than the magic blood resurrection of Kirk we got …

53. Ahmed - July 13, 2014

“When asked if he felt complete with the Khan storyline, Orci slowly repeated, “Do I feel complete?” followed by a very lengthy pause after which he finally laughingly replied, “I can’t answer that.””

Great! Our favorite Khan might be back, just what we need !!

54. dswynne - July 13, 2014

@53 (Ahmed): Considering the success of Loki, they could easily make Cumberbatch’s Khan an anti-hero (or anti-villain?) with his own agenda, but is willing to serve the interests of the Federation to achieve it.

55. Kayla Iacovino - July 13, 2014

@Ahmed: This article is about LGBT characters in Star Trek. It’s fine to discuss other topics, but that’s what the Chat page is for.

56. Harry Ballz - July 13, 2014

Bringing Khan back for a return appearance would be a HORRENDOUS mistake!

Don’t f@ck up the next movie by repeating the worst mistake from the last movie!

Screw all the pandering to the foreign markets, just give us a friggin’ GREAT movie!

57. Ahmed - July 13, 2014

@55. dswynne

A better idea, deep in the uncharted territory they meet Nero who was just coming out of a white hole. Nero & Khan work together to have their revenge & fight an epic battle deep in the space!

58. Ahmed - July 13, 2014

@Kayla Iacovino

Sure, I guess that you guys will put up an article about the new interview sometime soon.

59. Lostrod - July 13, 2014

#25: Captain Smithwell:

You nailed it. I agree with you 100%.


60. heyberto - July 13, 2014

I actually Star Trek missed its chance to lead the charge in this area. It’s not taboo as it once was. The President has come out in favor of it. Social commentary of about LGBT, race.. it just doesn’t resonate like it did back in the days of TOS. I’m not saying they’re not relevant, but it doesn’t carry the kind of weight it used to. It’s much more an acceptable part of culture and today you’ve got to be careful that you don’t come off as pandering and inorganic with it. I think it’s fine to include a gay character, but If it’s got too fine a point on it, it becomes a major distraction to the story. It’s completely different to make a character have a backstory that identifies their sexuality, and let it creep out on screen organically, perhaps over multiple stories. Most characters’s sexuality isn’t mentioned or even a critical element of the story, so unless the story is dealing with it in a direct way that affects the plot (I don’t see a whole movie able to pull that off, but episodic TV could, easily) then it’s hard to integrate it into a story in other way than with subtlety.

61. Keachick (Rose) - July 13, 2014

Star Trek has not missed the boat at all regarding the introduction of a gay character.

All it would take is a new officer being assigned as bridge crew or one of Scotty’s engineering crew who happens to be gay (male or female). One suggestion made could be that Captain Kirk has to inform a gay spouse of the serious injury or death of his/her partner – or could officiate at a wedding of a gay couple (male or female). The precedent for Kirk officiating at a wedding of two crew members has already been set in TOS.

The turbolift scene (ST09) between Uhura and Spock did not seem shoehorned nor sappy (whatever that means). It was Uhura’s response to finding out that her boyfriend’s planet had just been destroyed and his mother killed. It was a perfectly natural and reasonable response and was not sappy at all. She gave him what he actually needed, no more and no less.

Frankly, the fact that Uhura kissed Spock on the transporter platform – so what? Neither were certain that they would ever see each other again, given the dangerousness of the mission. So – we can’t allow a couple, friends, time to kiss, hug…

What the hell is wrong with everyone? If I read, “because it is unprofessional” I shall scream. If people cannot express their grief and need to be consoled or to console, then what is the point of much else in life? Spock and Uhura were all aware of time…show some respect for the needs of the characters (who represent aspects of our humanity).

62. richpit - July 13, 2014

I just don’t know why anyone gives a crap anymore. Like many others have said, being gay is commonplace, mainstream and done to DEATH on TV and most other media.

How about we don’t give a crap about any characters sexuality or race or gender. Yeah, they kind of throw Kirk’s heterosexuality in everyone’s face, but that’s just because it’s become such a cliche joke over the decades the Kirk will sleep with any female.

I’m not gay, but I don’t care if anyone else is..and I don’t care if a character in a Star Trek film is gay or straight.

63. Michael Hall - July 13, 2014

“Gene never had a gay character in trek because Gene believed homosexuality was wrong. it is plain and simple.”

Did you ever read the novelization of STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, penned by none other than Eugene Wesley Roddenberry? Apparently not.

64. Admin - July 13, 2014


Warning for trolling. You cannot disparage a group nor speak for GR

65. Cervantes - July 13, 2014

Y’know, I still think making those Klingons ‘Lursa’ and ‘B’Etor’ from GENERATIONS merely ‘sisters’ was a mistake, if you get what I mean. I doubt it would have improved the movie any, but still.

Considering some of the things cooked up for the first 2 Nu-Trek movies, it wouldn’t surprise me if they have a couple of burly Klingons as an ‘item’ this time around.

In fact, I still think making those female Klingons ‘Lursa’ and ‘B’Etor’ from GENERATIONS merely ‘sisters’ instead of ‘an item’ was a mistake, if you get what I mean. It probably wouldn’t have improved the movie one jot, but still.

However, Bob has said that he’d like to see this particular issue addressed in Trek, so here’s my suggestion if something like this absolutely has to be included in the next movie – just have ‘Keenser’ show his new ‘beau’ around, as that’ll give Scotty and the others in the engineering section something to REALLY talk about… ;)

66. Cervantes - July 13, 2014

Apologies for typing that same thought about the Klingon ‘sisters’ out twice above. I guess that notion must have really made an impression on me! ;)

67. Bucky - July 13, 2014

Aside from the Captain (or Spock and Uhurah) there really isn’t a lot of time devoted to relationships in the Trek flicks and I could see it kinda slowing things down if they worked it into a movie. But I could see it working if Trek, for the luvva Gawd, finally went back to being a TV series. Which it really should be!

68. AppleAnnie - July 13, 2014

I say yes, it would be a great opportunity for some LGBT representation! If they have enough time for Spock and Uhura then they should have enough time for a non-heterosexual couple as well right? It doesn’t even have to be a main focus, just something to acknowledge the LGBT community and show that they can be portrayed in a respectful way, as equally as the non-LGBT community. I don’t think being gay is commonplace, I think films are too often segregated into “gay movies” and certain actors who have come out are stereotyped as only being able to portray gay characters. My opinion is that we should have equal representation for same sex couples in action movies that are as widely known as Star Trek and aren’t specifically known as “that movie about gays”.

And whoever tries to say that being gay isn’t still taboo or misunderstood in general should try telling that to my parents, or my friends’ parents, who called my friend a freak because he was transgender and pansexual, and who insist that bisexuality doesn’t exist.

69. Curious Cadet - July 13, 2014

@60. heyberto,
“It’s not taboo as it once was. The President has come out in favor of it.”

You mean the black president who symbolizes the end of racism in America?

Yeah, homosexuality is as American as Apple pie these days. Thank God we live in a time when all races, sexes and individuals are represented equally under the law, and embraced socially throughout the nation.

70. IDIC Lives! - July 14, 2014

I agree, a LBGT character(s) should be worked into the plot, not shoe-horned which is a sign of bad writing.

#51 Curious Cadet

STID has so many “shoe-horned in” scenes that it could start a shoe store.
In 2009 film, they did hid in the turbolift to see each other intimately and Spock had just lost his planet and his mother. That worked.

The transport pad kiss did not work.

The shoehorns are a big part of STID’s problem, even Bones and Kirk – the “stop the metaphors” scene is contrived. So, for a gay character to be worked in gracefully as an individual first and foremost, might be a bridge too far.

But we can hope and let it be known we want this. I don’t think it is too late to keep working on eliminating this type of prejudice because if people don’t keep “at” eliminating the bigotry, it grows/comes back. It is naïve to think it is all over.

71. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

36. IDIC Lives! – July 13, 2014

“What are you on about, Keachick?”

I think that’s funny.

72. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

Whats the hold up?

73. Jonboc - July 14, 2014

Why the need to focus on sexuality…which, for the most part, is a fairly personal issue? No one shines the spotlight on Kirk’s religion. Is Scotty a practicing Catholic? Or maybe he is a Jehova’s Witness, or even an Atheist. If it is something very oersonal and it isn’t part of the story it doesn’t need to be shoehorned in just to pander to any given segment of society. Yes, of course, there are gays in Trek’s future…to think otherwise would be ridiculous. But does Trek need to shine a spotlight on them? Of course not, that isn’t Trek’s style.

74. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

There.. not there?. “whats the deal with trek movie’

that’s a Seinfeild reference for you trek fans

75. Keachick (Rose) - July 14, 2014

#34 – “look at the furore some made over Uhura giving Spock a simple kiss when they arrived back safely from Kronos. There were actually people objecting to that brief scene on this site.”

#36 – “You grossly and on purpose, mis-state what has been discussed and explained to you over and over and over regarding relationships in STID.”

I have not mis-stated anything. So what if Uhura gives Spock a peck on the lips in public? or Kirk, Spock and Uhura discuss stuff that is both personal and professional on a shuttlecraft? I do not have to have things explained to me over and over about how *ill-timed* just because people go apeshit, can’t handle about any expression of PDA. Not my problem. Nothing that happened in the shuttlecraft, on the transporter or when Uhura and Spock arrived back from Kronos could be described as offensive or overdone. The scene on the turbolift did not even take place in public.

Maybe the timing could have been better as in show Kirk, Spock and Uhura discuss the problem in Kirk ready room (wherever that was), but the issue did not get aired properly until Kirk backed Uhura up forcing Spock to explain. It happened on the shuttlecraft because they were once again going into danger and Spock’s attitude to dangerous situations is what bugged both Kirk and Uhura. The discussion became at the point more relevant than at any other time.

What – none of you could see that connection?

What about the notion of a “brief gay scene”? The Freudian slip is all yours, IDIC. Your projection! I don’t refer to underwear as “briefs”.

76. IDIC Lives! - July 14, 2014

#67 Bucky

The relationship “details” need not be shown often – perhaps once so that the viewer knows – but we DO need to know that this individual or these individuals (who are gay) are simply an integral part of the starship crew.

Members of the military are trained to a fine and perhaps brutal degree to follow orders, to not show emotionality, trained to FUNCTION in dangerous situations.

Sure, if you are in a life or death gun fight and your best friend dies beside you, you will show emotion regardless of training but if you are simply going on a mission and “pumped up,” focused, you do not steal a kiss from another officer even if you are his or her lover.

You do not pick a lover’s quarrel when you are in a chopper or shuttle, headed into hostile territory. If you do this, your commanding officer NEEDS to stop you–and not in a friendly, mumbling, third-wheel way (reference Mudd shuttle scene).


So while we are talking about running up to kiss Spock in the transporter, how about the character who happens to be gay, also having an interlude with his or her lover on the transporter pad, and how’s about the captain himself billing and cooing with Carol or whoever–as he stands on the transporter pad.

And then Scotty must have a girlfriend somewhere, so she can run into the transporter room as he operates the controls and hug him. (“Oops, Cap’n, I hit the wrong coordinate!”) Of all the times Spock should be feeling cold, logical and focused, it is right when he is going to beam over to Nero’s ship.

Spock and Uhura are given leeway they should not have in tense, dangerous situations. Star Fleet, if we follow S/U’s lead, will have been reduced to an undisciplined bunch of kissing fools, gay or straight.

77. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

Babylon5 had lesbian, bi and gay relationships 20 years ago ST. It was a
part of the natural story for the characters involved. While a part of
the character it was not the point of it . Being of the same sex was
incidental to the relationship or the story, it just was. Star Trek
mistake is its approach to homosexuality It seems to be going in the
direction of it being about a person being gay rather than just a person
who is incidentally in a same sex relation ship.

78. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014


79. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

OK so when I load the page All my comments are posted except the one with the B5 reference. I refresh the page no change but when I post another comment about the other comment 3 times the same b5 posts appear. Its very specific to one post is there a problem?

80. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014


81. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014


82. IDIC Lives! - July 14, 2014

Son of Jello,

My recent comment which referred to your comment, is not posted either. I assume this happens to everyone?

83. IDIC Lives! - July 14, 2014

Pardon moi, my recent comment is posted.

Son of Jello, some of my other comments have taken a while.

84. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

by Staff , Filed under: History,ST: Into Darkness Sequel,TOS,Trek Franchise , 76 comments

This is what the article is saying in the news section of TrekMovie. But my screen says 79 comments

before I posted 1 comment it said this.

by Staff , Filed under: History,ST: Into Darkness Sequel,TOS,Trek Franchise , 75 comments.

Its saying 76 comments but showing 79 comments and the three B5 repeats are the 3 missing. Why is it that this specific post is being posted 3 times when I add a comment but not being counted then being deleted when I re load the page? If it was a mixture of them fine. But its not whats the problem?

85. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

81. IDIC Lives! – July 14, 2014

Its the coming and going I don”t get, and to a specific post its not random. It comes across like someone at trekmovie is arguing with someone else.

Who is “by Staff”

86. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

They seem to have stuck this time. I guess someone got controle of the moderator key board. Twice is a coincidence Three times is not.

87. TUP - July 14, 2014

The time has passed. What I think they should do though is have a gay character or characters be included but not because they are gay. Doesnt have to be a major character and shouldnt be a message – the orientation of the character should not be a plot point. But just as the regular characters go back to their quarters with their opposite gender partner, this character would have a same sex partner.

But making orientation a plot point at this point in Trek history would make them seem way behind the curve.

88. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

Back again.

89. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

Gone again. And you didn’t like my chinatown joke you grumpy old movie buff

90. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

Back Again

91. Jemini - July 14, 2014

34. Keachick (Rose) – July 13, 2014

you got a point LOL
some people here are so outraged by (an interracial/interspecies) het romance, it figures if they could survive a gay couple…

and I’m still amused over those who call the S/U scenes ‘making out’ lol
poor innocent souls… stay away from HBO tv-shows for your own good….


51. Curious Cadet – July 13, 2014

@35. IDIC Lives!,
“One more time: It is not the relationships objected to, it is the incredibly bad timing of them”

Yes. Timing and professionalism. Quite frankly, Spock and Uhura’s romantic moments seems to be shoehorned into Trek. It seems completely out of place and forced half the time, and challenges the notion of Starfleet decorum. Did Spock and Uhura have to make out on the transporter pad in front of everyone? No, they could have, and probably should have, done it before Spock became center stage on the transporter platform.</blockquote

How would you introduce the audience to their relationship, then? When would it be the 'right moment'? None, I guess.
Do you find the friendships moments as shoehorned (like Kirk telling Spock he'd miss him in star trek into darkness or the death scene, for that matter or the interactions between kirk and bones) and 'out of place'? Probably not.

Personally, I think that the way they revealed that Spock and Uhura were a couple is a stroke of genius. You get little hints about that before the turbolift scene (like, when he wanted to save his parents and she was concerned for him) and then the moment he hugs her back in the turbolift you finally see the whole picture. The actors also did an amazing job making the scene deeply emotional without being cheesy or sappy, at all. I though it was one of the most effective and autentic moments I watched in a movie in the last decade, far more effective than many romantic scenes I have watched in other movies. It also said so much about them in just a little time.

"Did Spock and Uhura have to make out on the transporter pad in front of everyone?"

well, judging by the fact that he knew he had few chances to get back from the mission and his 100% logical vulcan father had just admitted he loved Amanda and Spock himself probably felt guilty for not having expressed his feelings for his mother before she died and he, perhaps, didn't want to make the same mistake with his girlfriend and wanted to give her a proper goodbye at least, then yes HE had to (because I seem to remember that in the script it's said that he's the one that kissed her)

Some people also miss the allegory that Spock represents there. They had made him feel ashamed of his feelings his whole life but here he is, accepting that he does have feelings and even his father sort of encourages him and finally accepts him for who he really is, just like his mother did. Uhura probably was the only person who knew that side of him.
On that transport pad he's not making a show, he probably doesn't realize that others are in the room (that's point) and while it makes for a funny scene too because Kirk is absolutely taken aback because the cold vulcan apparently has a girlfriend and it's the same girl he himself had tried to 'get' to no avail, NO ONE JUDGES SPOCK for that.
It's some of the audience that does that and essentially proves the point by being as bigoted and prejudiced about him as the vulcans at the science academy were.

and why people insist with this idea that relationships are forbidden on that ship?
Besides, compared to WHO should Spock and Uhura be unprofessional, there? Surely not Kirk and surely not Scotty. After their own actions on that ship, they truly were not in the place to have the right to nitpick about anyone's lack of professionality there. You probably don't even think that the other characters were not professional (or now you will say that you have a problem with them too, and yet it's always S/U that are singled out for that stuff and it speaks volumes to me)


61. Keachick (Rose) – July 13, 2014

What the hell is wrong with everyone? If I read, “because it is unprofessional” I shall scream. If people cannot express their grief and need to be consoled or to console, then what is the point of much else in life? Spock and Uhura were all aware of time…show some respect for the needs of the characters (who represent aspects of our humanity).


if only they were at least coherent with this 'it's not professional' argument and apply it to all the characters and situations, rather than being so 'selective' about it.
you'd think that, if they cared so much about professionality, they'd comment other moments in the movies that were actually far more obvious examples of lack of professionality from other characters. Yet, they ignore or justify those because they find them funny… but then they are outraged by two characters sharing a kiss… lol

92. Jemini - July 14, 2014

* didn’t close the blockquote tag correctly

93. IDIC Lives! - July 14, 2014

Well now my most recent remark is gone. It was there for a few hours.

It was on topic. It was respectful. What are you censoring then?

94. IDIC Lives! - July 14, 2014

Jemini – “you got a point LOL
some people here are so outraged by (an interracial/interspecies) het romance, it figures if they could survive a gay couple…”

I assume I am one of the people you are LOLing at.
My objections to Spock and Uhura’s unprofessionalism are NOT because of their interspecies romance and I resent you implying it is.

As a veteran of the civil rights movement in the 1960s and having raised my mixed race daughter by myself, and being bisexual myself, I resent your ignorant “LOL” statement.

I also write professionally on the possibilities of other advanced races in the galaxy and other aspects of humankind opening up to the galaxy of beings who are out there.

I object not to Spock and Uhura’s affair but in the way it is shoe-horned into so many scenes.

95. Sidney - July 14, 2014

I’m gay. I don’t want to see a gay character crammed into Trek. I look at sexual identity in Trek the way that Gene dealt with Patrick Stewart’s baldness — when Stewart was introduced as Picard, a reporter asked “In the 24th century, won’t they have cured baldness?”

Gene said, “In the 24th century, nobody will care.”

Please, please don’t force an LGBT character into the next movie. It would’ve been cool and forward-thinking on TNG, 20+ years ago; now it’d be blatant “me-too” pandering and that sort of crap ruins stories.

And this current movie series has enough story problems as it is.

96. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

5 had lesbian, bi and gay relationships 20 years ago ST. It was a
part of the natural story for the characters involved. While a part of
the character it was not the point of it . Being of the same sex was
incidental to the relationship or the story, it just was. Star Trek
mistake is its approach to homosexuality It seems to be going in the
direction of it being about a person being gay rather than just a person
who is incidentally in a same sex relation ship.

97. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

Either speak up or stay out of it. I have never seen a posts deleted in this forum without a response from a moderator. And they have been very of topic Its seems the special guest moderator Its more uptight than a homophobe at madi gras. Silence is the way of the coward and we have a huge one moderating at the moment.

98. IDIC Lives! - July 14, 2014

“Torchwood” had characters, including the lead character, who happened to be gay. “Torchwood’s First Season approached the brilliance of TOS in its own way. Really great.

This is the approach which should be taken, as I said before, not a token gay character but a character or characters who happen to be gay, only one small aspect of who they are. Of course Star Trek does have its main characters already set (despite the “mutations” in the nu-universe), so there is the element of not enough film time to have really good new characters fleshed-out. Again, how wonderful a series would be!

99. Keachick (Rose) - July 14, 2014

#97 – What is happening on this thread with posts appearing and disappearing is not new. This topic is a controversial one, despite some who say that homosexuality and gay relationships are part of the norm of our present day society. They are not, nor are they considered by a huge number of people, in US society, to be anything akin to what is seen as “right” or “normal”.

You have no basis to suggest that the moderator(s) are either cowardly or homophobes. Show some respect.

100. Keachick (Rose) - July 14, 2014

@Jemini – She (IDIC) is all yours…she who writes all this speculative fiction – so she says and frankly, so what?

101. Nachum - July 14, 2014

I’m not sure why this needs to be pointed out, but the fact remains that many, many people believe that homosexuality is abnormal (or worse), and that (from a fictional point of view) it may well be “solved” by the time of Star Trek. Obviously, such people would also believe that it does not belong on screens today. Again, there are many of them- you probably know quite a few yourself. Who knows, maybe even Gene Roddenberry believed that. And that’s the issue in a nutshell.

102. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

Susan Ivanova’s Mother was a telepath and everyday the PSI core would come to her house and give her a choice. Take the sleepers or join the core, But her mother loved her daughter so she took the sleepers stayed at home. This eventually made her mother the living equivilent of being dead. Susan is also a latent telepath who is terrified the psi core will find out she has a this ability and take her away not to mention she hates them for what they did. whats this got to do with being gay? lets move on.

Susan grows up and joins EarthForce she looses her brother relationships for Susan always end badly thru no fault of her own she is a very unhappy but determined person with a lot of sadness in her life and understandingly protective of herself but not isolated. One day she meets a telepath who is a part of the psicore. She should hate this person but doesn’t they fall in love they have a “relationship” The relationship was one that evolved and one there is a reason for there is a history behind the two characters that make this relation ship a natural one. It evolves the character the plot and builds on what we know of Susan Ivanova.

At no stage did the writers decide that we are going to focus on this characters sexuality to prove we that we are cool and get it. Smart move someone has thought about this character, who they are and where they are going and is adult enough to wright about it

Star Trek cannot deliver on a standard or depth in its writing to properly handle a complex and meaning full relationship of any two characters. Yes ST needs a few gay characters but it needs to mature to avoid any gay character becoming the ST alien of the week. Yes there was a gay Starfleet officer here but that was last week. Just pretend you learnt something and move on. Its been over 50 years and 100 of episodes and ST is still no where near delivering on any plot that involves homosexuality that wouldn’t come across as nervous and ambiguous. Star Trek really needs to catch up with its modern audience.

103. Harry Ballz - July 14, 2014

The nature vs. nurture argument is absurd. Obviously, people are born gay, it is in their biological make-up. They are hard-wired that way. Those who say it’s a choice need to have their head examined. Can anyone who is heterosexual ever picture being intimate with a person of their own gender? No, of course not. You wouldn’t even consider it. So, why do you think anyone else would be so inclined? It’s not like choosing a different make of car to drive. Being biological, it goes right to the core of your being. Choice has nothing to do with it.

Oh, and as to the close-minded religious angle……keep one thing in mind. If people are born gay, then it must be okay, because God doesn’t make mistakes.

104. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

You know what George Takei is doing to the console in the top picture. It looks like he is moderating this forum.

105. Patroclus - July 14, 2014

Mr. Orci,
Other than Captain Jack Harkness – and I’m not even sure if he qualifies – there has never been ANY GOOD portrayal of a strong masculine heroic Earth man, who just happens to be gay, in any science fiction film or TV show. If it’s going to be done anywhere, it should have been and still SHOULD BE done, in Star Trek. You have the ability to correct this massive over-site. Please, please do it.

106. IDIC Lives! - July 14, 2014

#100 Keachick

I do not write “speculative fiction.” This is as accurate as you get, isn’t it?
There is no such category of fiction, I hate to inform you, but, tis true.

I write science speculation and futurism and have made my living at it for over 30 years.

As Buddy Holly sang, Rave on.

107. IDIC Lives! - July 14, 2014

#91 Jemini

I have no desire to debate or argue with you, not sure why Keachick “handed me” to you. Are you to march me to the gallows?

I gave you the glimpse of my life in order to say, I do not “oppose” Spock/Uhura interspecies romance at all on the basis of interspecies coupling.

Of course we are all one human race but in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1965, the first big love of my life (Tommie ) might as well have been an ET. He was a black civil rights leader and I was a red haired white teenager. We experienced real hatred, much of it dangerous especially to him.

Then a few years later, my daughter’s dad was from Trinidad and was a mixture of East Indian and African background.

I won’t give you my entire bio here but I have had (and do have) an adventuresome, interesting life which included a very sincere love affair with someone of the same sex – and we both love/loved Trek. Actually, a certain sexual freedom runs through fandom, especially the older generation. or maybe I just don’t know the new generation as well.

So I simply could not stand to have you say that “some people” hate the S/U interspecies romance because they (we) are so prejudiced, so “of course” we could not stand to have a gay relationship in Trek.

This simply blew my mind because my entire life has been “against the wind” involving my right to love any color and any gender, and also–being ahead of my time in my love of space, Trek, science speculation, and what the future holds.

So I do not want to do combat with you, Jemini, I really do not. I gave a passionate response, what you insinuated was so opposite to what I believe, and have passionately LIVED. I realize you just said it flippantly with a “LOL.”

I don’t know why Keachick is bothered by my method of earning a living. If I had a way (there is none) of giving an individual private information, I would give you the title of my latest book, published in July 2013 or share one or two of my science speculation articles, complete with mentions of Trek. I just published an article on the Greek gods which was fun to write and I thought of Apollo (“Who Mourns for Adonis”).

My daughter is an adult now, a tall, beautiful brown-skinned woman not unlike Zoe Saldana.

108. Keachick (Rose) - July 14, 2014

I am not bothered by your method of earning a living. Yes, you are right – you have indeed said that you write science speculation etc.

It is just that you put it out as if this alone should make other posters accept what you write more readily as being more valid as opposed to others who contribute here. You appear to do it to justify your own posturings when I come in with a comment that you do not agree with.

Who Cares did the same on another thread – how convenient it is that he had studied various religions for a long time and lives next to a super volcano. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t…Other than calling me ignorant, whatever and a waste of time debating anything with, he did not offer any solid argument that could discount anything that I wrote.

I see these as props…

I have no such props, just what knowledge I have and my intelligence, logic and heart.

109. Son of Jello - July 14, 2014

Keachick you really are terrible at expressing yourself. Concentrate on what you are saying and what your trying to communicate.

more readily
valid as opposed
solid argument
I have no such props
justify your own posturings

concentrate on what you want to say don’t use words in a sentence because you think it sounds smart.

110. MC1 Doug - July 14, 2014

As a gay man, a Sailor in the Navy no less, I think it is long past the time for TREK to “man up” and truly espouse the ideals of diversity that the show has preached for decades..

There, I said it. Now for the nitty gritty. I don’t want TREK to include a gay character purely for the sake of including one. I don’t need to see two men in bed to push the envelope. There has to be a way to be inclusive without banging the viewers over the head with it and not having the bubba set gagging and heaving.

The best way to include a gay character is to have one and not make a big deal about it. It could be something as simple as two men or women sitting in the rec deck hand in hand making goo goo eyes at one another.

David Gerrold’s “Blood and Fire” did it and did it well.

AND to NX-01, I am sorry you feel that anyone is trying to “ram something down your throat.” Your words, not mine. Funny how the haters always seem to use that phrase. Freudian, no doubt?

111. Jack - July 14, 2014

5. Agreed.

I always wished they’d just shown same-sex couples holding hands in Ten Forward.

Although it could be done well. If a character having a relationship is already part of the story, why not make it a same-sex one? IDIC, baby.

112. Jemini - July 15, 2014

107. IDIC Lives! – July 14, 2014

Guilty conscience much? ;) I didn’t ask for your biography…
And I’m confused why you’d think my comment was directed at you and exclusively you. Disliking the s/u thing (or romance in trek in general) surely isn’t the most ‘original’ opinion in this site… There are many that had almost a nervous breakdown over that relationship and they still do. So with such premises, it’s hard to imagine that these people would accept a gay character/couple. Besides, Spock himself could be the allegory here and he’s constantly judged bad for being himself (which means being half human and half vulcan, two races that both have deep emotions though they deal with them differently) Spock and Uhura are “the other” and them having feelings is a constant source of complain from some st fans that are outraged about any hint of affection b/w the characters that is not a dudebro relationship and no, it has nothing to do with professionality or being in character. If it did, the same people would then complain about other scenes too that for their own rules are actually worse, but they don’t. And there is nothing worse than being so disingenuos with the choices made by these writers.

113. Jemini - July 15, 2014

When I say “guilty con science” I mean that perhaps you should ask yourself why my comment hit a nerve and you felt the impellent need to justify yourself so much.

Btw, ‘Infinite Diversity In Infinite Combinations’ is a great nick, though I’m not 100% sure that this phylosophy truly ‘lives’ here.
But the reboot seems, in some aspects, that vulcan theory truly put to practice so you should be happy.

114. pilotfred - July 15, 2014

yeah its about time doctor who proved you can do a gay character and who dose not like captain jack?

their was a gay character in first contact however unless you read that you did not know,so they chicken out and then killed him off

i hope when they do it its not a will and grace approach as in he said in ever episode i am gay for that it would be best done on a new TV program and show it as a part of their life
another reason why not the jj i don’t feel they would do it right

115. Nachum - July 15, 2014


1. There’s really no scientific evidence one way or another. You speak with authority, but we just don’t know.

2. I’m not sure what you intend with your “God” argument. There are many, many babies born with all sorts of problems.

116. IDIC Lives! - July 15, 2014

#112 Jemini

I did not think your comment was directed at me personally. But in the broader set of those you were laughing it, it included me: People in your authoritative opinion, who dislike S/U and therefore could not adjust to a gay character.

I had already posted that I dislike ONLY the shoehorning of the S/U affair (the scenes which do not belong where they are in STID), and their unprofessionalism, therefore (because of when the scenes are shoe-horned in). This has been discussed a lot.

On this and other threads, no one including me, said they disliked the S/U relationship. Maybe there was that discussion when STID first came out, I wasn’t one of them.

I reached out a hand of friendship or at least non-combat to you and your answer was to attack and to be cold and rude. I do not have a guilty conscience, I was explaining so that WE MIGHT UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER BETTER.

Maybe you had better look within. Does it threaten you to just be nice?

I won’t be back to this thread; I have had my say-so here and have no desire to bicker with you. So save your response, it won’t have been read.

117. IDIC Lives! - July 15, 2014

By the way, if you really had S/U’s best interests at heart, you’d want them written better.

#109 Son of Jello
Agreed, a writer she ain’t.

118. Axanar - July 15, 2014

If you want to introduce a gay character do it the Trek way.
Just have a scene with an alien gay character.

For example:
An Alien gay character during a diplomatic mission, or even first contact, hitting on Kirk and see how Kirk will get out of that situation
without starting a diplomatic incident.
Should be funny and it serves several purposes
1. There is a gay character
2. Shows homosexuality is not just a human thing
3. Shows how open minded (or not) future society is
4. It’s a funny moment.

119. Son of Jello - July 15, 2014

Trying to define sexuality will never work you cant have it “Gay or Straight” they are both the same thing.

“John and Betty are both gay” Wrong

“John and Betty are sexually active are well adjusted and having meaningful relationships with other people” Better

The point being its not John and Betty who have the issue. Its the person calling them gay that has the problem. So don’t wright about the problem wright about the relationship and expose the person with the problem to it. Introduce them to the idea that everything is OK its just your perceptions of people and what you feel they can and can’t do that’s making you upset.

120. samrock83 - July 15, 2014

I agree that gay rights is a civil rights issue. But I think shoehorning gay characters into a feature film is not the way to go. Including it if it serves the story line is one thing. Otherwise it could end up as a token offering which could end up being a transparent effort. Television is the best opportunity to develop homosexual characters, and at this point in time it would probably be accepted as it’s been in other television series. As others have said, at this point it’s not exactly groundbreaking. Just more of a hey we can do this too.

121. Curious Cadet - July 15, 2014

@103. Harry Ballz,
“If people are born gay, then it must be okay, because God doesn’t make mistakes.”

The problem with your argument is that it is derived from the correct assumption that people are born with their sexual orientation. Christians in large part believe homosexuals are born straight and choose a deviant gay lifestyle — free will. So no mistakes by God there. Many Christians also believe the Earth is literally 6,000 years old and created on 6 literal days.

Then again, Q could make that a reality with one snap of his fingers, so who’s to say?

122. Curious Cadet - July 15, 2014

@118. Axanar,
“If you want to introduce a gay character do it the Trek way.”

Actually the Trek way would be an allegory involving anything but a directly gay moment.

It would be an alien culture that reproduces asexually, but there are some “deviant” members of the race that are attracted to each other physically and act on those urges, and as a group are oppressed. They form pair bonds to raise their asexually reproduced children much to the horror of the mainstream single parents. In fact you could take it further by suggesting that vestigial organs, from the species’ ancient sexual reproducing past are re-evolving to become functional again.

Here’s the thing about your proposal … It’s like a scene from the 1980s Trek movies. You can’t do that now. I would hope by the 23rd century homosexuality is so much an accepted part of the culture that openly flirting with the same sex is as commonplace as with the opposite sex now. This wouldn’t phase the real Kirk at all. In the 23rd century lets hope a simple “not interested” will suffice with no one feeling slighted. The problem with your scene is that it’s steeped in modern gay stereotypes. It works more as an abuse of power sort of thing … Ambassador gets rejected but keeps pushing Kirk to do something he’s not into because of his position of power, and this puts Kirk in an awkward position, not the mere act of being propositioned. Confusing the two doesn’t serve homosexual characters at all.

123. Axanar - July 15, 2014

@Curious Cadet
My example was just that: an example. I am not a writer.

But fact is that Star Trek used Aliens in the future to expose these days problems. For example the black and white aliens (forgot the name) in TOS (racism), Klingons representing Russians (cold war), etc….

In our western countries homosexuality is largely accepted. So, most Trekkies don’t see the point to add a gay character just for the purpose of putting the character there. But there are still countries who don’t accept homosexuality, sometimes even punish it by death.

So, do it the Trek way, use Aliens and just write it better than I did. :-)
I just think that kind of story would be better served in a new Trek series than in a movie.

124. Yanks - July 15, 2014

Oh my…

125. Patroclus - July 15, 2014

Using an alien or an android or whatever — would be a cop-out. He needs to be a member of Starfleet, preferably a member of the Enterprise crew, like Lieutenant Hawk — except as an ongoing character.

Perhaps, because he is leaving on a 5-year deep space mission, you could show Chekov saying good-bye to his boyfriend. Anton Yelchin might need to butch it up a little bit though.

126. Son of Jello - July 15, 2014

125. Patroclus

That’s ST for you they find an Android and say it has the rights of a Human and everybody is congratulating themselves for their high moral ideals. And yet here is ST unable to accept or acknowlage a fellow human’s choice of partner. If the android turned out to be gay, they would tear it apart because it would no longer be seen as being related to as human. So they destroy the machine, (don’t forget that being a machine humans wont give up on the idea that it is there to serve them and that includes their moral view of the world because that’s the morality that judged as being human to begin with) pat themselves on the back again for their High moral ideals then smile and wave at the Gay starfleet cadet who is looking at a molten pile on the floor and shitting themselves.

So Data came out of the electronic closet and for Data their was only one way out for him, Give up your life in a way we can respect or be dehumanised for being gay and therefore redundant to our view of ourselves and slated to be destroyed.

Data : But what about my son B4

Starfleet: Don’t worry Data we haven’t finished the programing on him yet, Hes a blank slate and we will make sure that their are no “crossed wires issues” with him this time. So every time we look at it….oops Him we can see our own morality reflected back at us. So Data go save yourself save your captain………………….Please Data go I don’t want to sign the paperwork on you,I do this as a friend Data.

127. TBW - July 16, 2014

#10 took an awfully long route to saying he doesn’t like Takei because he had a negative personal experience with him. Even threw in “some of my best friends are gay” for good measure. Nothing about the lifestyle, though…

128. Elsewho - July 16, 2014

580 votes & the poll is closed, eh? Gotta make sure the results are what you want them to be, I guess. Can’t have reality interfere with your agenda.

And no, George. It’s NOT time & never will be appropriate. You want to do what you want to do in the privacy of your own home, you go for it, but don’t push that offensive crap on the other 95% of the population.

It’s not a civil rights issue…at ALL. People who CHOOSE to be with someone of the same sex have the same rights as the rest of us.

Marriage is biblically defined as between one man & one woman. You can’t change the definition. You want civil unions, fine. Have at it. You want to be able to deal with your civil partner’s personal affairs without interference, that’s fine too & I believe that is the right thing anyway. Marriage by definition, however, is not an option.

“Homophobe”? No. Learn the meaning of the word ‘phobia’. I do not fear people who choose to do something I find disgusting. And you can lie to yourself all you want about that…it IS about sex because that’s where it starts. Absolutely EVERY single gay person I have EVER talked to, known, been friends with, or heard about…EVERY SINGLE ONE…was molested by an adult of the same sex when they were younger. EVERY ONE. The Catholic Church needs to work on that…priests & nuns should be allowed to marry…especially since the Bible indicates God commanded us to do so. Old Testament Hebrew priests were allowed to marry.

Gay “Christians” who think the Bible doesn’t indicate homosexual behavior is disgusting obviously haven’t read it. Leviticus 20 & Romans 1 are two clearly defined examples.

Whether you believe in creation or evolution, it’s still unnatural. In creation, God gave a commandment to “be fruitful & multiply”. Evolution is survival of the fittest & the drive of all species is procreation. Two men or two women cannot procreate. Ergo, unnatural.

As for the concept of the whole thing, you don’t drive your car into a train tunnel just because it fits. It doesn’t belong there.

129. Keachick (Rose) - July 16, 2014

#128 – I wonder if Zachary Quinto was ever sexually molested as a child or teenager. He has never said if he was.

Apparently he realized what his sexual orientation was when he was a teenager and I believe he told his mother when he was about 20. It is only within the last year or so that the rest of the world came to know, although there were many who suspected.

Any gay character would not be “pushing that offensive crap” in a Star Trek film any more than we get to see any real heterosexual activity. The sex, if any, is merely hinted at. Most of what has been shown so far has been flirtation (Kirk and Uhura – ST09), the briefest of scenes with Kirk and two Caitian women, but most of all, what we have seen is a heterosexual couple, Uhura and Spock (ironically Spock is played by an actor who is gay), gently kissing and hugging.

If anyone was hoping to see more genuine sex activity been shown (either hetero or gay) in a Star Trek film, they’ll need to be prepared to wait for a VERY long time.

Chill out and be nice!

130. Ahmed - July 16, 2014

@ 129. Keachick (Rose) – July 16, 2014

“I wonder if Zachary Quinto was ever sexually molested as a child or teenager. He has never said if he was.”


131. Keachick (Rose) - July 16, 2014

Ahmed – Try to keep up.

I was responding to Elsewho’s post #128 where he says, “it IS about sex because that’s where it starts. Absolutely EVERY single gay person I have EVER talked to, known, been friends with, or heard about…EVERY SINGLE ONE…was molested by an adult of the same sex when they were younger.”

Hence my comment about Zachary Quinto not relating such an experience (in public at least). I have to wonder if that might be true of Jack, another poster here who is openly gay.

I do know that being sexually molested as a child can be very damaging psychologically and those people can have difficulty in forming healthy (sexual) relationships when they get older. It can be common among some women, who say that they are lesbian. They were raped as a young girl, suffered severe injury (some may not be able to have children as a result) and are so afraid of being intimate with any man and who, by default, seek companionship and (sexual) affection from other women. Frankly, so what?

However, this is not the case for all lesbians nor is it the case for all gay men.

132. Son of Jello - July 16, 2014

128. Elsewho – July 16, 2014

Evolution is survival of the fittest

Yes that’s correct… That’s why there are still gay people and always will be.
Did you know that gay couples have children? even the married ones.

As angry as you get and as loud as you get there is not much you can do about it
evolution and god are supporting homosexuality to survive. As you have noticed there everywhere.

133. Ahmed - July 16, 2014

@131. Keachick (Rose)

It was an inappropriate comment to make about someone’s personal life.

134. Keachick (Rose) - July 16, 2014

Elsewho was making comments about people he knew (OK – he did not mention them by name). Why was my comment especially inappropriate especially since Zachary Quinto volunteered this information about his own homosexual orientation?

Both Jack and Zachary Quinto have the right to not say anything, but then again, perhaps in this particular context, either one may wish to respond.

#132 – Most gay couples do not have children naturally. They are either adopted or use of various artificial reproductive technologies and surrogacy are involved. However, there are many gay men or women who are married to a heterosexual spouse and who have children and raise them like any other parents.

Actually bisexuality is more common than either the gay or heterosexual community wish to admit which is dumb and discriminatory.

135. Harry Ballz - July 16, 2014

I must be bisexual……….I only get it twice a year!

(ba dum bum)

136. Moshe - July 17, 2014

“Takei: …and that episode where Kirk kissed Uhura, a white man kissing a black woman, that was blacked out in all of the Southern states: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. Our ratings plummeted!”

That is an urban legend. There is no basis whatsoever to the oft-repeated claim that “Plato’s Stepchildren” was “blacked out” or censored in any way by any NBC affiliates, let alone “all of the Southern states”. Nor is it true that Star Trek’s “ratings plummeted”.

137. Michael - July 17, 2014

Perhaps a few straight boyz hold outs would cringe at a gay scene on a trek film. I’m sure it’s unlikely we’d see a dude on dude bed romp ala Kirk scene. No rec room disco ball’d bar/club where Chekov is macking on a Tellerite holding a man bag. It needs to be a Oh…by the way this crewmember doesn’t chase skirts scene. But since the principal characters all seem to have been portrayed heterosexual(most notably in the TOS show), and the Capt. & 1st officer w/ communications officer in the newer films…..more than likely the gay moment would most likely derive from a secondary character. But part of me would scream and LOL if they added a flaming queen at a bridge station that just had a couple comedy relief throw away lines. Kinda but not quite like Men On Film from In Living Color skits! ahahahahahahahahahah

138. Keachick (Rose) - July 17, 2014

#135 – LOL!

139. Keachick (Rose) - July 17, 2014

#136 – Why do you say that?

This is something that George Takei said and given that he was there at the time when these episodes were made, why would this not be true?

I had read similar statements many years ago (sometime in the 1970s) and later in a book by William Shatner (also there at the time) called “Star Trek”. If I remember correctly, William Shatner wrote that he had his life threatened by one of these white supremacist groups, because he kissed a black woman on television. His wife was verbally abused on the phone because of what her husband had done on film. This was when the studio realized that some of the actors and their families required some kind of security and when phone numbers were no longer in the telephone directories of the day.

I do not know what kind of harassment Nichelle Nichols endured, if any.

These are now three separate accounts, told at different times, two of them by the actual people involved in making these episodes, confirming what I had previously read. So who should I/we be inclined to believe?

140. Cygnus-X1 - July 18, 2014

137. Michael – July 17, 2014

But part of me would scream and LOL if they added a flaming queen at a bridge station that just had a couple comedy relief throw away lines.

If the comedy worked, I would be fully behind that character. (not a pun)

But, I suspect that there would be a backlash from Gay Trek fans, and maybe even from the gay community at large and the “Gay Mafia,” along the lines of: We finally get a Gay Trek character, and they make him a stereotype not to be taken seriously.

I’ll tell my Gay Trekkie/er friends this: If you’re wanting a sappy “romantic” love scene between two Gay men in a Trek movie any time soon—like in Phase 2 Blood and Fire—you’re going to be disappointed because nobody particularly wants to see that except for a relative handful of you (again, not a pun).

As previously stated, I don’t even particularly want to see it between two heterosexuals. There just doesn’t seem any need for it in a Trek movie. Again, in a TV show there’s a lot more leeway that sort of thing. As for a passing shot of a gay Star Fleet officer or crewman just hanging out in a bar with his/her significant other holding hands or whatever, I don’t think that would bother many American audience members—It’s so common nowadays in popular culture, anyway. But, remember, the BR Trek movies are being largely tailored for Russian and Chinese audiences, and they might not react so well to it.

141. Moshe - July 18, 2014

#139. Keachick (Rose):

The story that Southern NBC affiliates blacked out the episode most likely grew out of the account in Nichelle Nichols’ 1995 book. She said that nervous network executives were *worried* that this might happen, and therefore ordered an alternate version of the scene to be filmed for possible usage in the South. But Shatner wouldn’t cooperate (he deliberately crossed his eyes to make the alternate version unusable). Note that Nichols made no claim that the episode was in fact blacked out anywhere. There exists no evidence that I have ever seen (and I’ve looked for it) that any affiliates blacked it out. Takei’s statement that it was “blacked out in all of the Southern states: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana”[!] is obviously untrue, because numerous people in the South reported seeing the episode when it was broadcast — including those white supremacists who harassed and threatened Shatner. In that connection, btw, Shatner, like Nichols, never claimed that the episode was blacked out anywhere, and his account of the Southern white supremacists’ reaction contradicts Takei’s claim that it had been blacked out in those areas and not seen.

142. Disinvited - July 18, 2014

#141. Moshe – July 18, 2014

#141. Moshe – July 18, 2014

I don’t know why you couldn’t find evidence. It wasn’t just restricted to TREK. Here’s some hard numbers from the season starting in September of 1968 when PLATO’S STEPCHILDREN aired:

on page 49, “Missing links in the TV chains.”,BROADCASTING, Jan 13, 1969

You’ll see that out of 210 affiliates NBC contractually obligated to air STAR TREK only 181 had. Now not every one of those affiliates doing what the hell they wanted when it came to NOT airing network shows that they were obligated to, were from the South, but the important thing about these numbers is that it establishes that stations were engaging in the practice and the article sites southern stations as participating.

Now, I grew up in The South, and they were clever about masking it for the most part, but just as sure as the old guard’d assert The Civil War was about “States’ rights”, we all knew it tain’t so.

The important thing about BROADCASTING’s reporting of these missing links is that it shows the affiliates got increasingly brazen about flouting their obligations and as I recall The South lead the way in showing it could be done from as far back as 1955. That NBC had a real fear of their Southern affiliates blacking out netwrok programming was most definitely based, in part, on their segregationist affiliate’s,WLBT, history of employing the tactic as well as others.

143. Moshe - July 19, 2014

#142. Disinvited:

Thanks for the Broadcasting link. It’s very interesting, but it provides no evidence that any affiliate, Southern or otherwise, specifically blacked out “Plato’s Stepchildren”.

As for Takei’s claim that it was “blacked out in all of the Southern states: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana”: This is contradicted by accounts such as these two comments:

* “FWIW, I saw the ‘Kiss Episode’ of Star Trek on the occasion of its initial airing. Since the only TV stations available to me at the time originated from either Montgomery, Al., or Columbus, Ga., it’s safe to say not ALL Southern stations refused to show that episode, if indeed any refused to.
I don’t recall any big disturbance about this show at the time. I think it has become more famous recently. Back in the day, a “shrug” reaction was about all it generated, at least from the people I was hangin’ out with.”

* “Same here in North Carolina. I think this ‘banning story’ is urban legend trying to show how backwards southerners are.”

If these people saw the episode at the time on Southern stations, then Takei’s assertion that the episode was blacked out across all those states is clearly incorrect.

144. Moshe - July 19, 2014

An interesting side point: The “first interracial kiss on television” almost happened two years earlier, in the Star Trek episode “The Alternative Factor”. The original version of the script had a rather steamy kiss scene between Lazarus (who was white) and Lt. Masters (who was black, and was originally supposed to have a very central role in the episode). And this was a real, consensual kiss, unlike the one forced upon Kirk and Uhura against their will in “Plato’s Stepchildren”.

See here for more details:

145. Disinvited - July 19, 2014

#143. Moshe – July 19, 2014

If “all” was your point then I can concur. Not all Southern TV licenses were held by segregationists. Not to mention, in my area we could pull in signals north of the Mason-Dixon Line as well.

However, you forget that in this same season just prior Kirk not only kissed but married a female of Amerind ancestry in THE PARADISE SYNDROME and later in ELAAN OF TROYIUS where I seem to recall Shatner Passionately kissing France Nuyen.

It seems clear from that original scripting of THE ALTERNATIVE FACTOR and those other episodes that Trek had intentions of facing headon the issue of getting interacial kissing to air.

146. Harry Ballz - July 19, 2014

Which is just a hair away from interacial boning.

Let’s see what kind of ratings they get for THAT!


147. Keachick (Rose) - July 20, 2014

In The Paradise Syndrome Kirk got his wife Miramanee pregnant. That would suggest some genuine interracial boning…:)

148. h - July 20, 2014

Good point, Keachick! I LIKE the way you think!

Even though Kirk was playing an Indian God, he didn’t have any RESERVATIONS.

149. Harry Ballz - July 20, 2014

Good point, Keachick! I LIKE the way you think!

Even though Kirk was playing an Indian God, he didn’t have any RESERVATIONS.

150. Cygnus-X1 - July 21, 2014


151. Disinvited - July 21, 2014

#148. h – July 20, 2014

What happened, Harry? Did you shave?

#149. Harry Ballz – July 20, 2014

Whew! Grew back.

152. Freddie - July 27, 2014

Oh c’mon, lets just have Scotty or Chekov or Sulu turn out to be a trans*dude, or Carol Marcus, or whomever, and be perfectly in line with canon because in the distant trek future: Nobody gives a frack anymore about these things… is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.