Anthony Rapp Talks About Being Star Trek’s First Gay TV Character

Last November it was first revealed that actor Anthony Rapp was cast in Star Trek: Discovery to play the role of Lt. Stamets, an astromycologist and science officer on the USS Discovery. It was also officially confirmed that Stamets would be the first ever openly gay character on a Star Trek TV show (and the second in franchise history following the reveal that Sulu is gay in 2016’s Star Trek Beyond).

In an interview today with MetroWeekly to promote the film bwoy, the actor did talk a little bit about Star Trek: Discovery, saying:

I can say that I’m in it, and that I’m really excited about it. I pretty much am not allowed to say anything else. I don’t even know if I’m allowed to say that. It’s so profoundly under wraps, which I completely understand and actually endorse. But I’m really excited.

But Rapp did have a bit more to say on what it was like to be a gay man playing the first gay character on a Star Trek TV show:

I’m honored. I’m also honored to be a part of a piece of work that’s part of the cultural pantheon. It’s kind of crazy that I get to be a part of something that means so much to so many people. It meant a lot to me, too. I’m thrilled and I’m honored to be the vehicle for this aspect of the story that’s being told.

For much more, read the full interview at A trailer for bwoy is below. 

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What about Jadzia Dax and Lenara Khan in DS9’s ‘Rejoined?’ Or Marvik and Janice Lester in Kirk’s body?

None of those was a gay character, so…what about them?

I thought Keenser was gay. And Jar Jar too!

Seriously. I can’t see how this helps Trek. Hope fully it is well written.

I can’t see how it could possibly hurt Trek. It’s something Roddenberry promised throughout his run on TNG and is getting fulfilled now, thirty years later. It’s long overdue.

The way it can help Trek, is that it’s yet more information about a character. The more we know about a character, the more we know what that character wants, his/her point of view, thinking process, and problem-solving methodology. The more information the better.

Why should this be a question of “helping” or “hurting” Star Trek? I only makes the Star Trek universe a bit more real. How logical can a big universe be when there a different cultures and species and even members of mixed species while gay charactes appear to be non-existent?

What does helping or hurting have to do with it? He’s simply a gay man. They exist.

Star Trek is a bigger idea than what the gay movement puts forth.

We should be reaching for beyond. No around.

REMEMBER. Don’t Litter!


Are you in middle school? And is this 1995? Grow up.

No, they were trans-characters. Still a first.

That’s the thing, it’s never been direct. Body possessions yes, “accidental” (and forbidden) same sex trills, an androgynous species that appears really quite female, and bisexual versions of characters in a corrupt and depraved mirror universe. It’s never dared to just have an actual gay character so far.

Wasn’t Mirror Leeta lesbian?

…”mirror” Leeta. As in the version of herself in the corrupt and depraved mirror universe, as if depicting it as a form of deviancy (which to some of the religious conservative types it is)

Though I probably should have said LGBT rather than bisexual to be less specific

Actually, “Mirror” Leeta wasn’t a corrupt, depraved version of Prime Leeta. In fact, she was part of the Resistence against the Klingons and the Cardassians. “Mirror” Kira was the depraved one, simply because of Bajor’s association with Cardassia Prime. Oh, and btw? Keep your religious bigotry to yourself. There are many within the LGTBQ+ community who are devout religious, especially among the Christian community. I don’t know you well enough to know your hurt feelings on this subject, but this is the 21st century, and the community has made progress on many fronts, including within religious institutions. And besides, we’re ‘Trek fans. We’re suppose to think beyond the provincial, you know?

What about the intendant and mirror Ezri?

Mirror Kira was clearly bi-sexual.

I think Jadzia was pretty much bisexual- Worf was concerned she was hitting on a woman in “Let He Who is Without Sin” and it was treated as a non-issue, he was just concerned about infidelity. However it was so subtle that it barely counts.

As a person who identifies first a human and second as a human male who happens to dislike females and prefers to “Pon Far” with those of my own gender…

I pray that they make him more like ME and less like the majority of other gay characters that have been on TV. Please make it so! There are many, but so few that are not insulting clowns.

Most TV “gays” are more concerned about what is going in or out of their junk then what is going on around them. They are Comedic support and played for laughs. Lefou on the new Beauty and the Beast is a great example of yet another gay (or IS he?) buffoon. Jack (and Will sometimes too) on Will and Grace was a sex obsessed man-ho. that or they are ridiculous cliches. Modern Family is great example. I can stand about a minute of that show before I am insulted by what the writer’s definition of what constitutes what a Gay Family should look like. the ONLY Positive expression of a gay characters I am aware of on TV is on Walking Dead. Both the gay and lesbians on that show are realistic and are HUMAN first and just so happen to be gay.

I am glad he is a scientist though. Maybe people will stop asking me what curtains to pick out and if it is ok to wear a black belt with brown shoes.

I think one of the important reasons for such a character to be on Star Trek is that it’s a workplace show. It will probably show a balance of his work life and downtime, adding layers to the character. Hopefully, as Bryan Fuller was likely the one to conceive the character, and Anthony Rapp is playing him, Stamets will be true to their experiences. They’re both quite talented and I have faith in their safeguarding the character, certainly at least Rapp’s doing so, as Fuller is no longer involved.

Get ready for the stereotypes!

America is a good 10-20 years behind the times in terms of civil equality. I think this will turn off us international viewers. Is it true that there are places in America where same sex couples can’t get married, or even be considered as next of kin?

Trek is about 30 years to late on this one. Sorry guys.

There have been one quasi gay character in Trek before like Mirror Universe Kira who was bisexual (and darn proud of it lol). And obviously KT Sulu is gay but very little shown other than walking with his husband. But this sounds like it will be the first fully gay character in Star Trek where he will be fully developed and a regular cast memeber. Its amazing it took so long for this to happen considering we’re talking about Star Trek here but better late than never.

It’s neat that he understands what a big deal Star Trek is and that it meant something to him. We’re honored to have you in the Trek family, Mr. Rapp.

If they make any kind of deal about this on the show, it is going to be very disappointing. Not because there shouldn’t be a gay character… but because there should be nothing to tell about a gay character. If he dates or is married or whatever, that’s all cool, but if there is any sort of plotline or conflict about him being gay, it is just going to seem cheap and pandering to today’s audience. Everytime they had anything approaching a gay character before, the sexuality was not in question or an issue for anyone (in starfleet) – it is just accepted. Yes, the aliens had issues – and that was the way they told the story, but a Star Fleet officer, we never really knew nor should have cared if they were gay or bi or trans or whatever. Yes, we knew Kirk was straight, or at least we saw him with women, he might just screw anyone.

What I still think was fantastic about Sulu, is that it wasn’t ever touched on in the series, only that he had a family in Trek VI. He could have been, he might have been all along – we didn’t know and it didn’t matter in a lick about his progress as an officer or a 23rd century character. And 50 years later, there is a reveal about a one of the seven original heroes, and it is just matter of fact, no big deal. See, Sulu was there and gay for 50 years and nobody cared and it didn’t define him as a character or keep him from being a hero and the best at his job on the best ship in the fleet. That’s the genius I think of that reveal.

Sulu was gay? 50 years? Are you not confusing the character with the actor?

Tell me the scene where it established he was straight? Never did. It’s not in the series bible. It was undefined. Jung, Pegg, and Cho defined it. There is no reason to think that he was straight in the prime timeline.

No scene doesn’t make him gay. According to Mr. Takie, he’s straight. So…dunno. But you seem to.

Correction: Mr. Takei. My bad.

Takei said Roddenberry told him they couldn’t have an openly gay character due to social mores. Then Takei said he played the character straight, which is just offensive. What does that even mean? What if a writer from the show said he wrote Sulu gay? Who wins that one? The fact is, to the extent Takei thinks he intended for Sulu to be gay as an actor, it didn’t necessarily come across on the screen. And in the absence of any overt depiction of Sulu engaging in “straight” activities, then canon rules. Actors say things all the time about their characters, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that’s true for the character if there’s no evidence to support it, regardless of intent. And there’s not any in the case of Sulu. Thus, the option remains open until defined — which STB finally did. Of course thanks to the alternate reality in which the BR films take place, the question is still open in the Prime universe.

The tenancy is to assume someone is heterosexual, which is a shame and an embarrassment to the person you’re branding with that assumption. Only in the last decade or so are people waking up to the fact that certain assumptions are not only foolish, but also emotionally bullying people in to at best hiding their sexuality. and at worse faking an opposite sexuality. Countless suicides and self harm are the real world results of that.

Equally unfortunate is the rise of the “white heterosexual male” who feel to be in some kind of crazy minority, when in fact it is their attitudes over decades and centuries which has caused pain to said minorities victimised for years purely for being not like them.

I gather some southern states in the usa have a particular issue with this, but thankfully they’ll largely be wiped out within a generation or two.

Knowing US programme making, this will probably be intensely stereotyped and turned in to sex scenes at every possible opportunity, particularly with Moonves now pulling the stings. I’m sure in his mind it makes perfect sense to “push boundaries” with non-heterosexual sex scenes, rather than the actual nature of a same sex relationship which is to just get on with life and deal with the same issues as any other couple.

Why do you think Fullar left?

If you think about it: according to the recent research, homosexuality is an inborn condition caused by a specific biochemical imbalance in the womb. Given the state of medicine in 23th century, it is almost certain that they have a way to prevent homosexuality from developing at all (or, on the other hand, to trigger its development on purpose). I mean, they can regrow a kidney with a pill, right? What’s a minor biochemical imbalance compared to regrowing an entire organ?

So where does that leave us? With “anti-homo” vaccine widely available, any homosexual person born in the 23th century is homosexual by the decision – or by the negligence – of their parents (much like some parents nowadays decide to not have their kids inoculated). What sort of people would make their kid gay on purpose? Some religious community members, maybe? Anti-transhuman neohipster extremists? Or was it just a temporary fad a few decades ago?

I dunno about you, but I sense quite a lot of rather juicy gay-based science fiction stories built on this simple concept. It is highly improbable the attitude towards gay people in 23th century will be the same as the attitude towards gays in 21th century. It is going to develop. And I’d like the show to think about the possible development.

Why should parents prevent the homosexuality from developing in a future where people have to face the problems of OVERpopulation and where people decide to have only one kid or no kid at all? They decide to have sex not for the purpose of procreation. It would be very arrogant to decide or interfer with the sexual orientation of their child.

Homosexuality has been a part of humanity for millennia. If anything would be a fleeting fad, it would be the prevention of homosexuality, one I sincerely hope we avoid.

And the Star Trek future is far more enlightened than to tamper with genes just because someone is different. It’s one thing to cure a disease, but homosexuality is not a biochemical imbalance. Assuming the research you reference is correct, it would be a biochemical difference, something far more neutral than what the word “imbalance” suggests.

In the Star Trek future, we’d have fought a devastating war as a result of such tampering. When asked why they wouldn’t cure Picard’s baldness in the 24th century, Roddenberry wisely said that people in the future wouldn’t care. There will be a similar attitude toward people born LGBT as there’s nothing wrong with that either.

The only reason to weed out homosexuality is if there is something wrong with it.
The world is hopefully slowly learning that there is nothing wrong with it.
It will take some time, but the general trend is for the better.
The only people who will try to manipulate genes to keep their children from being gay are from the same crowd that already try to send their children to gay conversion therapy.
If we’re lucky, people like that will be gone by the 23rd century. Or such a tiny minority that they won’t matter anymore.

You’re wondering in to the realms of designer babies. To predetermin your child’s gender, hair colour, sexuality, hight, skin colour, eye colour, disposition etc is trash. The way you talk seems to imply that any sexuality other than heterosexuality is undesirable. Is that really how you feel?

For starters, you’re looking for stories about the development of cultural attitudes surrounding LGBT community, based on current unproven scientific theory. If this were incontrovertible fact, the LGBT community would be all but doomed, especially under a Trump/Pence administration. The repeal and replace bill would have included a provision that all pregnancies be checked for this condition, and corrected. Vast sums of money would be thrown at research to correct this condition. Maybe some parents would opt out of such treatment when informed their child would be gay, but it’s hard to imagine the majority would, when described as an imbalance — especially given the pain and suffering most lgbt kids must endure growing up. So the stories you imagine would not likely exist.

That said, the stories could be told via other cultures as Trek has always done with modern social issues, and maybe a gay character in the 23rd century would be affected by such stories, but I also doubt that in reality, if we are to accept the cultural and racial harmony dipicted from the earliest concepts of Trek. But certainly the character could be the filter through which modern audiences view the stories. Then again, Uhura set the bar in Savage Curtain, asking why should she be offended by “Lincoln’s” words.

Add to that Trek has already tackled some of these ideas about changing genetic characteristics of a child in the womb. I think VOY did it very effectively with Torres pregnancy and in the process of correcting a genetic health problem, started making changes to physical characteristics so her child would not have to endure the emotional trauma she endured as a child with cranial ridges, which expanded to included potential personality changes. While not exactly the same, it’s a similar metaphore to LGBT concerns.

So, making a gay character the lightning rod for these issues, is not very realistic, and likely quite distracting for a 10 episode series. Of course that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be used to good effect, in a story about another less tolerant culture. But that story could be told about any race, culture, species, or ideology. Considering Trek has likely told that particular story every way possible, having a gay character then gives them a brand new way to tell it from a perspective where it’s no longer an issue.

As for the “decision” issue, there’s some very interesting room to explore there. But your “vaccine” concept more or less eliminates that — it’s hard to imagine someone deciding to be something they aren’t compelled to be biologically. By the 23rd century, at least humans on earth will hopefully have come to realize that whether nature or nurture, the choices we make, should be tolerated by all. Let’s say homosexuality turns out to be a choice people have been making for thousands of years, not “born that way”. By the 23rd century the answer according to Trek should be “who cares”. Which once again kills any possibility of building such stories around a gay character moot. Trek canon has already negated all such conflicts by the 23rd century, even though it’s not explicitly stated — it would be incongruous to believe everything else had been addressed by then except the LGBT issues, simply because 1960s American television prohibited it.

I just don’t get why people would think that there will be stories where there’s a conflict about his orientation. There may be stories about his love interests, even ones that may put him in impossible situations, but there likely won’t be stories about 23rd century humans discriminating against him for his sexuality.

You are right. Why should there be homophobia in the 23rd century? In a universe where relationships between different species are accepted, homophobia would be totally illogical.
How could someone condemn same-sex human relationships but accept for example a klingon-human relationship? It would also contradict the concept of IDIC. In a big universe there would also exist different concepts of sexuality among different species.

All I am saying is that it will be disappointing if they do have some issue shipboard. If aliens have an issue with it (however, Kirk aside, the crew’s sexuality should not be exposed or involve the people they visit – its unprofessional and could be a violation of the prime directive) – but if there is some story where it comes into play with aliens, that’s fine.

But just as it was important with Uhura, that she be there, that she be professional and a hero, that’s what is important about growing tolerance and equality – not making stories about her being black. The color of her skin is completely irrelevant to her character and her job and performance. This dude being gay should be just as irrelevant shipboard – and to not do that is a betrayal of the Roddenberry vision.

As for the post above about some anti-homosexual drug. What you are talking about is what was done to Bashier – whether it is pre-natal or after birth does not matter. Between that and eugenics, society will have to decide what it allows. If it is going to tamper with nature and start to weed out diverse genes, then there will be consequences – and many are not good. I doubt that on Earth after the eugenics wars that they would have approved of any such drugs/manipulation to eliminate genetic homosexuality — what would be the point of that?

It can’t be irrelevant. It will be a big part of who he is. But it won’t be seen as detrimental. That’s the difference–analogous to being post-racist, but not post-racial.

If the producers had any sense at all, they would make a Riker-Troy or Picard-Crusher type same-sex relationship where the sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever, but we all hoped they would get back together at some point.

There are also only 12 episodes in the season, so chances are it will seem forced no matter what they do.

CBS is about 20 years behind the times with these things, as is America in general. I hear you have churches who protest against homosexuality under the banner of free speech? That’s classed as a hate crime in the UK, said people would be arrested, and if they engaged in that kind of behaviour again they would probably land themselves in prison repeatedly.

The states has some catching up to do, which is not easy in such a big country with state-level jurisdiction.

I’m hoping that that the gay character thing does not become too ‘on the nose’. Lets just keep sexual stuff well in the background please!

Star Trek has lots of relationship stuff. Gay people have relationships. Sex is only a part of a relationship

You’re 50 years too late for that one chief. Last time I checked, there has been plenty of sex on these shows for decades now. Amazing the double standards that still happens today.

Star Trek never really did need to to dwell on sex and relationships. If a gay character has to be there, fine, but I’ve really no liking to see it become a thing, just for an ‘equality’ message.

pffff…there were a few episodes of Trek where the natives observed ‘the strangers’ getting busy in some form or another. Or Captain Kirk (on occasion, Spock), finding some lovely in the alien chain of command to seduce to get the ship out of a dire situation. Trek dwelled on sex, plenty.

As a gay man myself, I’m really happy to hear this latest installment of the Trek franchise will feature something which has never felt quite fairly or realistically handled. I hope he will just be ‘incidentally’ gay, no colourful mannerisms, just a regular joe who just happens to be attracted to his own gender. I’m just sad this wasn’t featured way back during TNG years – at that same very time, comedies such as The Golden Girls were featuring gay or equally progressive story lines (Blanche’s brother wanting to marry a man…Dorothy’s brother being a cross dresser) this is all during the late 80s and yet our supposedly open-minded and forward thinking portal into mankind’s future was hiding so far behind allegory and metaphor – it didn’t little to make generations of young gay people feel normal – and that one day they wouldn’t be the butt of jokes and have to hide. I am VERY unhappy we have another prequel, and that there’s this supposed ‘re-imagining’ of certain elements… but I’ll be watching with some vague optimism, that maybe in 2017, this can finally be handled right. I just hope he’s a regular, likeable guy – like many of us are.

Here in Russia we do not approve of this sort of thing.

Therefore, this show will probable be banned in Russia

Yeah, scenes of brutality are more approval, right? Blood and violence – totally ok.
There have been a lot of interspecies relationships in 50 years of Star Trek. Sex between different species goes far beyond same-sex between the SAME species. What is the equivalent of interspecies sex? Zoophilia maybe?
So maybe all Star Trek shows have to be banned in Russia?

It’s hard to ban media. I’m sure people in Russia who wish to see it will find a way. I hope they do. Censorship doesn’t work.

Ever see the Frontline documentary, The Secret State of North Korea?

It details how people smuggle USB drives into one of the few countries with absolutely no Internet access. If North Koreans can watch movies from the outside on those drives, then Russians can surely get their Star Trek fix, whether others, or you, approve of the content or not.

Too bad for Russia.

I am expecting quite a few things from this character. First off, I expect him to dress impeccably well. If he is in the same Starfleet uniform as everyone else, then his outfit should be ironed more. I would also like him to underplay the dangerous situations presented by making as sassy remark after the Captain gives a command. That would be pretty cool. Lastly, I would like the crew of the Discovery to eventually visit the planet Notgay. The Notgayans will overemphasize how not gay they are but making out with chicks and drinking beer. The gay character of Discovery will make out with a Notgayan and all hell will break loose. I haven’t thought of the ending yet.

I am expecting quite a few things from you as a Star Trek Fan. First off, I expect you too dress with a classic Star Trek uniform in everyday life. If you are the same clothes as everyone else, then your outfit should include at least a T-shirt with a Star Trek Logo.
Lastly, I would like you to eventually visit a Star Wars convention
and overemphasize how not Star Wars you are but making out with other trekkies and drinking blood wine. I haven’t thought of the ending yet.

I know some hella scruffy gay dudes. It’s kind of sweet.

Honestly they should concentrate on creating good stories and generally making a good show instead of all this PC nonsense. There was a time that Star Trek was about how humanity has progressed from today, now it all seems to be about conforming to today’s political correctness. I honestly would have rather read about what we may found out there, in the vastness of the universe, than about how the lead is a black female and there is now a gay character because every show on TV needs to have a gay character or else they are homophobe and there need to be x amount of black people or they are racist. I feel this is already an outdated manner of thinking and if Star Trek was indeed progressive (as they probably think are are making it to be) they would be able to look beyond this sort of nonsense. It is the future and I had totally accepted the explanation that these things weren’t an issue anymore like they might be today, but now it seems they are going to make it an issue again to conform it with all the other boring shows that I never would watch.

Yeah, all that PC nonsense. How about LOGIC? How logic can Star Trek be if in the vast Star Trek universe every captain is a white male american human and every character is straight? Oh wait… the political “redneck” correctness has to be respected.

Good stories only happen if there are well-developed and diverse characters that can bounce off of each other with different points of view.

It is not about PC, it is about representation. Star Trek is about the future, and those of us who live in the present that are underrepresented would like to see someone who gives us hope. It is only in recent history that homosexuals were allowed to be openly depicted on television or in movies or in any media. Gene Roddenberry wanted this on the Enterprise in 1966 and in 1987, but the censors were against it. The majority of the viewers back then would have backlashed at a gay character. It was amazing for a black woman and a depiction of a Russian man and an Asian man to be in the show, but gay was one step too far. I think having a gay character on the show is a good thing.

Also like these are all selling points of the show and fans have responded positively to these things. Why wouldn’t they promote it? The show probably will be smart about all this and not pander to stereotypes. This is just called advertising and generating buzz. As long as people are talking about Discovery, it’s more likely to succeed.

Whatever, I hope everyone who wanted a gay character is happy. I just don’t care anymore. I just want a premier date.

Hurting or helpful to the franchise isn’t the issue. Telling a relevant story is. Trek hasn’t always handled niche characters well in the past (Wesley, Data, Ferengi, pretty much every female in TOS), if this becomes ‘lets get the gay perspective on this’ the role will turn into caricature pretty damn fast….

It won’t be that as long as there’s specificity and truth to the character. I think that Bryan Fuller would have made sure of that, and I have faith that Anthony Rapp has the talent and intelligence to do the same.

A. No idea why he would be considered a ‘niche’ character since we know nothing about him yet and I doubt being gay will be his biggest development.

B. Data and Quark are some of the most popular characters in Star Trek today, so no idea where you are getting that. Wesley certainly wasn’t that popular but I think it was just the way they wrote him that rubbed some people the wrong way. As for TOS the problem with that show was basically everyone was a niche character minus Kirk, Spock and McCoy. And it was still the 60s regardless there is probably only so far they could go with certain characters. Obviously not true today.

He’ll be a niche character if the character exists for no other reason then he’s gay. The popularity of a character doesn’t mean they aren’t a niche character. In season two, Dr. Pulaski was asking some hard questions about the status of Data in the Trek universe. A great opportunity to write some hard hitting sci-fi about AI and artificial sentience. So, what happened? The jettisoned Pulaski, and Data went back to being comic relief and the deus ex machina trope. Ferengi, as mentioned previously, are a caricature of conservatives/capitalists….and apparently unredeemable. That also assumes, of course, they need redeeming. In so much that Spiner and Shimmerman did something with these characters is a testament to their abilities as actors that they were able to infuse some personality into characters that may have devoid of such.

I seriously think that it was a mistake to do this gay character thing in this manner. Before you troll hate me… think about this.

They really need subscribers to make this thing work for all access. There currently is a huge portion of the country that is sick of the liberal agenda being shoved down their throats, that is a big reason why Trump won the election.

I know from another comment thread that many of you think that Star Trek is a liberal outlet only but that really isn’t the case. The producers have always been more interested in the bottom line and that is dollars. If they can get people from both political affiliations, as many as possible, to watch… that is the goal.

The gay character is a creative risk that Brian Fuller in particular was really, really pushing hard. I know the people who look at the important things like how much money the show makes, have to be nervous that this character will scare off many conservative fans and therefore lose money.

Personally I think any sexual relationships in Star Trek kind of feel shoehorned in. Chacotay and Seven, Tom and Bellana, Kes and Neelix, and Uhura and Spock all felt forced and contrived to me. Why can’t sexuality be like the bathrooms on the Enterprise? We all know that they are there and used but the producers never choose to show our favorite captain bearing down and pushing one out.

Relationships are a part of life, especially on a ship that doesn’t see home much. So the line work and down time naturally blurs. YMMV as to whether individual relationships have been executed well from a storytelling perspective, but that’s no reason to write off the idea of relationships between characters wholesale. If they’re not fully developed characters, then they might as well be pawns on a chess board. And if they are fully developed, then there will naturally be friendships, and some of those friendships will naturally develop into something more.

And there are far more than liberal and conservative points of view. It’s nowhere near that black and white. Trek has often at least engaged with these issues, sometimes taking a side, sometimes not. Whether or not Trek is primarily liberal, having a gay character on Trek is something that Roddenberry promised thirty years ago. He was clearly in favor of increasing LGBT representation in some form. So, it’s hardly revolutionary to do so now, 20 years after Ellen came out on her show.

Showing support for LGBT rights and representation is something that corporations are increasingly willing to do, even if you believe they risk losing business. Moonves said that the show already paid for itself, so I’m not sure it’s much of a risk to have fewer gay characters than some sitcoms from the 90s.

“Why can’t sexuality be like the bathrooms on the Enterprise? We all know that they are there and used but the producers never choose to show our favorite captain bearing down and pushing one out.”

Where is the problem simply knowing one character is gay? We know he has a same sex partner and nothing more. Period. Take a look on VOY: Except the one episode where Janeway had a romance we knew she was straight and had left a husband on earth.
If conserative fans will be scared off they should ask themself how they never had a problem with couples of mixed species. This goes far beyond than homosexuality and made no sense as they didnt tolerate Kirk kissing Uhura (SAME species) but had no problem Kirk f****** an alien (different species).

“I seriously think that it was a mistake to do this gay character thing in this manner.”

We havent seen an episode yet. So how can this be a mistake since we DON’T KNOW this thing in “this manner”? We don’t know in which manner this “gay character thing” is done.

Deanna and Worf – that was shoehorned in too. But DS9 did it well – Sisko and Kasidy, Worf and Jadzia, Garak and Julian.

Star Trek waffled on the liberalism, but it leaned more liberal. The influence it had, especially from TOS was though that it didn’t push current agendas in your face. The lessons were there, but because it didn’t stick its finger in people’s faces telling them they were wrong, but instead showing the parallels it brought about more tolerance and understanding.

I don’t think putting a gay character on the show is a risk BTW. This show is going to succeed or fail for a number of reasons, and only a small factor of that is going to be having a gay character.

What they need to do is get the show on. Delaying 5 months and then 8 months and then an undetermined time is NOT good. They still haven’t figured this out – they have the #1 show on TV, and they need to tie into and lead into the new Trek show with Big Bang.

There were deluded people out there that thought the film Beauty and the Beast was going to fail once it got out one of the characters were gay. There was a lot of ‘how dare they’ attitudes in people and the strange idea you can’t have gay characters in ‘children’s movies’ as if you are introducing something lewd to them.

Well we know what happened with that, BATB was the biggest movie opening in March ever. That tells people that this issue is no longer an issue with the overwhelming majority out there. Disney can now have gay characters in childrens fables who admittedly were not originally gay and people just don’t care.

So I agree with you. The issue of a gay character is not what the show would live or die by. Maybe 20 years ago but not today. Its still very odd to me how Star Trek is behind on this issue and some people talk about it as if there are no gay characters on TV today. There are tons and those shows are thriving. Now its not to say more can’t be done or more representation but generally its been accepted for over a decade of gay characters and gay orientated shows. The idea we are discussing STAR TREK out of all things might actually fail because the fan base can’t accept a minority character is a really odd statement to be made in 2017.

So yeah I don’t think this would be an issue in the least. The issue will be if the show sucks or not. That’s all thats really going to matter in terms of viewer interest.

it doesn’t work if it is badly written.

Again, it would have been better not to advertise this in advance as a selling-point, but to simply just have done it. This interview is a total throw-away, so it’s not as though some meaningful information were being imparted that just happened to reveal that there’s a gay character on the show. They’re clearly pitching the gay character as a selling point, which cheapens the effect and reduces it to little more than a box-tick, quota-fill. Not a huge deal for me personally, but it’s just another of those annoying little things that makes me concerned that the show is going to manifest as a forum for a bunch of social progressives to jerk themselves off about how holy and good they are. Because that’s about as interesting to me as a mediocre subway musician foisting his mediocre playing on me (“Hear how great I am! Give me money!”). And about as common.

Well said.

The interview was posted in a magazine targeted at gay people. It was mostly about another movie the actor did and about his own coming out. His TREK role was only mentioned on the side. So in just fitted the context of the whole interview.

Deanna Troy take a seat….a misunderstanding – territorial conflict?

I’m certain he’ll get the head of what’s wrong and correct it.

Knee pads not needed but miles of smiles are assured.



Rapp is in one of my favorite movies (“Dazed and Confused”), so I’m happy to see him playing a major Trek character.

That’s pretty much the main thing I know him from, and his was one of my favorite storylines in the film.

Hopefully, the writers won’t depict the character in a stereo-typical way (i.e. flamboyant or overly-sexualized).

about damn time.

Anyone else notice he didn’t actually say anything? He basically said he’s in it, he’s excited, he can’t talk about it, he’s excited, he’s honored, he’s honored, Trek means things to people, he’s honored. Profound!

A. He said upfront he couldn’t say anything more than he was in it basically.

B. The interview wasn’t about Star Trek. It was actually about his film Bwoy, which of course no one here cares about lol. The Star Trek stuff was just off hand comments.

Great character inclusion and casting, and it’s about da*med time.

It’s one of them good, star trek is a reflection of life and some people are gay, bad as this real should of been done before now,ok they done a number of shows that did not work, one where they find a cure!!! Not a good meassage. Good luck, they may be late for the party but let’s hope they bring something to it, much as doctor who did

Okay, we have a gay character. And?

Considering there’s a post upthread speculating that genetic research will “correct” for non-straight sexualities, it actually is pretty important to show that LGBT people will be around in the future, and that such a culture of trying to weed them out will fail, especially since such characters have been pretty invisible in Star Trek so far.

But even beyond that, representation matters. Whoopi Goldberg, LeVar Burton, and Mae Jemison all cite Nichelle Nichols as a major reason they went into the fields they did. Before Star Trek, they didn’t see people on TV that made them believe they could go into the work they did.

And from a storytelling perspective, any new traits that can be given to the characters of Star Trek: Discovery will offer a multitude of opportunities for telling new and different kinds of stories. It’s already clear that this show will be quite different from past Star Trek shows, but that only matters if we have well-developed characters. I’m sure we’ll learn all kinds of new things about Stamets, and the rest, but at least we know a little more about him now.

.. well that’s no surprise even though money was going on the kid as the “gay” character. Why is this news and why is it so important? It’s already rumored that a character is going to be muslim. This is a direct reflection of today’s society where a certain group who claims to be “all inclusive” ironically is putting labels on everyone thus causing division. Gene Roddenberry is rolling over in his grave because his bright vision of the future is but a dimming light of a far away star.

Who cares about someone’s sex preference? I’m bored with the first this and that. Bring on the damn show!

Jesus, just bring on the show. Who cares who is Gay?

Delete my posts? Jerks.

Sick of the left wing agenda invading Trek.