Roberto Orci says it would not be right to ‘shoe-horn’ in a character that was openly gay just for the sake of it
Yes, because Star Trek has never been about diversity…
Star Trek 3 director: Open gay character ‘not necessary’
Unfriendly reminder that Abrams said basically the same thing in an interview after 2009:
Where in a movie when you got those two hours, it usually is a broader stroke thing, and the question is how do you do it in a film that doesn’t feel like you’re shoehorning in something that has meaning to you in a piece of entertainment that doesn’t otherwise have room for it.
Of course, he said he’d “bring up with the writers next time we meet.”
But obviously there wasn’t an openly queer character in STID, so we can guess how that conversation went.
Great Orci thanks for giving me even more reasons not to go see your movie. This is the guy who gets Star Trek yeah right
No room for gays. Got it.
Things that the reboot can/did shoehorn in without a problem:
- Heterosexual romance between two characters that were otherwise not that close in TOS, all for the sake of having a het romance in the movie.
- Panty shots. Twice. For male fan viewing pleasure. No plot relevance. Just for the sake of male fans.
- Captain Kirk’s SUPER HETEROSEXUAL adventures in bangin’ ladies when really, did we need to see that? Was that relevant? Nah dude, nah.
- Death of Spock’s mom for the sake of Spock’s man pain
- Destruction of Vulcan for the sake of Spock’s man pain
- Carol Marcus’s unexplained career shift
- An old TOS Villian for the sake of raking in cash for the name drop.
- Using a famous white British actor for the sake of raking in cash for his appearance.
- Random references to TOS that only TOS fans would get even though none of what they do/did is aimed at TOS fans.
- Jim Kirk’s “death” and revival for…. IDK a “nod” to TWOK when really it’s just straight up plagiarism