JJ Abrams on Gays in Star Trek

AfterElton.com’s Michael Jensen had a chance to interview JJ Abrams about the lack of queer folk in Star Trek. This is what he had to say:

I just wouldn’t want the agenda to be… whether it’s a heterosexual relationship or a homosexual relationship, to tell a story that was, that felt distracting from the purpose of the story. So I’m complete[ly] open-minded, you know—I’m interested in finding a way to do that but it’s almost like it’s a tricky thing. Because it’s the right thing to do… but [you want to] do it in a way that doesn’t feel like you’re [just] doing it in order to make that point. Because then it’s almost a disservice. Because then it feels like, “Oh that stupid distracting subplot about you know, you know, that minority. Or those people."

So the question is how do you do it where it doesn’t feel like, ‘Why am I getting into that kind of detail about the character’s life if not just to make a point of it?’ So the answer is, I think it should be done and I’d love to be able to do it…once we get through the bigger issues of certain structural things that are really the key to the show or the movie being done well.

Evidently, the only way to show that a character is gay is to have them fuck on stage. Hopefully though, we'll eventually get some family portrayed in Star Trek; lets just pray they don't turn out to be evil or cannon fodder.

Source: Queerty
Full Interview: AfterElton
Related: Braga on Gays in Star Trek

Just more reason to dislike Abrams other the his movies. Anyway hasn't Star Trek had an agenda from its start.JJ Abrams is a lier and a cowered. He just should say I dont want to do it and I'm to afraid to say it.

I actually completely agree with him on this topic.

I don't know anything about Star Trek really but agree with him also. The same issue has arisen in the SW expanded universe also. There have been minor gay characters but no major ones just because of the overemphasis.

I find this a form of soft cowardice because, although the series is set in the 23/24/25th centuries where presumably this sort of prejudice has long been forgotten, the fact is the audience is still in an era where this remains a big concern, so they should bite the bullet and damn well do it. They don't have to be desperately unsubtle about it, nor do they have to bang on and on about it, but a very loud, clear "there are gay people in the future, it's okay and nobody cares about that stuff", is LONG overdue in the franchise.

Thats like saying that having Mrs Keiko O Brien in DS9 was distracting. Having a gay person in the show/movie does not require any dialog. You can have one in their quarters, another crewmember comes to go with them somewhere. The partners kiss, the person picking up says "Hi *insert name*", the partner says "Bring him/her back in one piece.". Scene ends, plot continues. Homosexuality enters ST in a casual manner and only the conservatives are upset.

I'm sympathetic to the problem; bear in mind that Keiko et al appeared in the television show, which had considerably more time to expend on personal relationship stuff. We've all been let down by Trek never having had gay characters featured in the series.

But in the movies, time is a lot more restricted. Only the main (hence mostly pre-established) characters get screen-time devoted to relationship stuff. I don't recall much of

partners kiss, the person picking up says "Hi *insert name*", the partner says "Bring him/her back in one piece."

happening in the movies with any incidental, heterosexual characters either.

The problem stems from the fact that yes, we want it to be presented that in the future there are gay people and everyone's cool with that. But if it were such a non-issue in the future, then if a character explicitly referred to another's homosexuality it would be as strange as someone today making a point of someone's heterosexuality. With time at such a premium in a motion picture, it's very difficult to include any meaningful scenes or exposition that could establish a character as gay without it seeming forced.

Here's an idea... Maybe they could make the JJ-verse's Sulu gay? He could just murmur a little "Oh my..." as a buff topless male ensign walked past.

I just want something small, as for it being a distraction so was the wedding in Nemesis, so was Scottys nephew in the Wrath of Khan. There are tons of other movies that have a bit of back story. really its as simple as this
crewmen:Have you seen my phaser
crewman2: Yeah, here
crewman: thanks, you know I'll come back to you. I always have :::hug/ kiss on the cheek:::
C2: I know ::::sniff:::
Then crewman walks out to his random red shirt death

I don't read too much into this...I really just think Abrams is simply saying he'd like to find an effective way to show that love is universal in the 23rd century. Period.

Unfortunately, in the gay-hating world of the present, it's just not easy to strike that balance when telling a story to such a massive audience, and he doesn't want to make it a part of the movie that people will undoubtedly talk about. I mean honestly, I really wonder if it's even avoidable without the Bullshit hollywood gossip that would come to follow.

I can see it now on all the news shows:
"Gay romance in the latest Star Trek installment?? I'll have the details!!"

"Boldly going where no ma...." etc etc, you get the idea.

If i were him, i'd make couples appear in the film as couples, like say during a social scene where everyone co-mingles with signifigant others. Straight couples and gay couples altogether...that would be the only way to convey the true idea of equality as we all would envision it 300 years from now.

Just my 2 pence of course,

Steve

I almost agree with Abrams. Usually I'm fairly lukewarm towards him, because he's done a lot I've liked and a lot I've disliked, and I feel sort of the same about his statement. Yes, bringing focus to a gay couple in a Star Trek film is like unnecessarily bringing focus to a heterosexual couple.

However... It doesn't have to be focus. Simply having two crewmen in the background holding hands, an affectionate smile between main or supporting actors or even (if it was felt necessary) a surreptitious lustful look shared between them would do. Even sharing quarters, like Chief O'Brien and Keiko, with (perhaps) an adopted son or daughter. There doesn't have to be any love scenes or even obvious lovy dovy behaviour or chit chat; just the normal affectionate behaviour one might expect to be shared between spouses. It doesn't necessarily need ten minutes devoted to it; in a film, all that would be required would be a two minute exchange to establish the characters' orientation.

Though... As I think of it, I would prefer it to be more subtle. The occasional couple holding hands or meeting and hugging in the background. Just enough for the subconscious to see it and (hopefully) accept it as something normal. If that happened more often, when it was seen in the foreground, it would not be seen to be something different, daring and bold; it wouldn't be shocking, it wouldn't be something out of the ordinary, it would be something we've subconsciously seen many many times before.

I agree with a lot of the people that something subtle would be nice; just like the men in skirts in the first three seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

OR...

We could go full blown out and have Star Trek meet Brokeback Mountain. Two lone ensigns, stranded on a planet, they must cling to each other to survive. In the cold night, infront of a warm fire, they embrace each other . . .

Will Starfleet be able to save them . . . do they even want to be saved . . . from each other?

Nick, I love you.

Quote by NicholasJohn16

We could go full blown out and have Star Trek meet Brokeback Mountain. Two lone ensigns, stranded on a planet, they must cling to each other to survive. In the cold night, infront of a warm fire, they embrace each other . . .

Will Starfleet be able to save them . . . do they even want to be saved . . . from each other?

Well, that's it. I'm now going to change the plot of the new Stonewall story completely. Time for some hot ensign-on-ensign action.

Quote by chemkarate

Quote by NicholasJohn16

We could go full blown out and have Star Trek meet Brokeback Mountain. Two lone ensigns, stranded on a planet, they must cling to each other to survive. In the cold night, infront of a warm fire, they embrace each other . . .

Will Starfleet be able to save them . . . do they even want to be saved . . . from each other?

Well, that's it. I'm now going to change the plot of the new Stonewall story completely. Time for some hot ensign-on-ensign action.

NO!!!!


That's not dramatic enough...

Hot Ensign on Captain action! Then after they're rescued, there are the awkward gazes, the stilted conversations, the terrible secret that they must both keep... A romance spanning so many pay grades! Scandalous!

If you're gonna go, go large! :3

Quote by Angelsilhouette

Quote by chemkarate

Quote by NicholasJohn16

We could go full blown out and have Star Trek meet Brokeback Mountain. Two lone ensigns, stranded on a planet, they must cling to each other to survive. In the cold night, infront of a warm fire, they embrace each other . . .

Will Starfleet be able to save them . . . do they even want to be saved . . . from each other?

Well, that's it. I'm now going to change the plot of the new Stonewall story completely. Time for some hot ensign-on-ensign action.

NO!!!!


That's not dramatic enough...

Hot Ensign on Captain action! Then after they're rescued, there are the awkward gazes, the stilted conversations, the terrible secret that they must both keep... A romance spanning so many pay grades! Scandalous!

If you're gonna go, go large! :3

I agree with you NicholasJohn16. That would be great to see Captain on ensign action.:tos:

This episode has already been done...it was TNG's Final Mission.

Quote by camenecium

Abrams isn't attempting social commentary in his style-over-substance body of work. The veneer of Trek he crudely splashed over his movie didn't make it Star Trek to me, so I can't hold him to those higher standards that Roddenberry's Trek inexplicably failed to meet.

I tend to agree. I think the boat sailed on Star Trek and social commentary long ago. We won't get a chance to have a gay character until another series comes out, if ever due to how the waters were soiled by Enterprise. It just doesn't make sense to have it in the movie. And if they do put it in the movie, you know it's just going to be some gratuitous female Vulcan on female Orion sex slave thing.

Oh then we could make Vulcan love Slave XI: Gay Klingons a Go-go (insert bad bat'leth joke here)

Quote by SaintPlazma

Oh then we could make Vulcan love Slave XI: Gay Klingons a Go-go (insert bad bat'leth joke here)

Is that a Dak'tagh in your pocket or are you just feeling a bit Bat'leth about our date last night?

:3

Quote by SaintPlazma

Oh then we could make Vulcan love Slave XI: Gay Klingons a Go-go (insert bad bat'leth joke here)

I prefer Bajorans to Vulcans. Much more passionate. Besides, the whole seven years thing sounds too much like straight marriage ;)