A reader returns to the initial debate over J.J. Abrams:
While the Star Trek universe may be a future in which many forms of sexual expression are accepted and embraced, we have yet to see male homosexuality or bisexuality – which I would argue is still the most taboo in our popular culture – depicted on-screen in any incarnation of Star Trek.
Another:
Abrams knows that if he has a same-sex kiss in a Star Trek film, that's all anybody will talk about in the months before the film is released. They won't be talking about the plot, or the great special effects, or whatever surprise cameo is made by a star from a previous cast. It'll just look like some cheap marketing gimmick from those "Holly-weirdos" trying to force their "crazy librul values" onto middle America. All that for a film that's just supposed to be fun popcorn entertainment.
That's a sad commentary on where we still are as a society, but Abrams isn't responsible for that.
His career is on the line with every big film he helms, he has a huge budget, and the studio better get that money back. And keep in mind that it probably wouldn't be his decision to make, anyway; it is likely up to the studio and the mega-corporation that owns it.
As a big supporter of gay rights, I think that this and the Sesame Street nonsense aren't helping you any. Stop getting so damn offended every time you come across someone who doesn't want to carry the banner for you in everything they make.
Um, I wrote regarding Bert and Ernie:
My gripe is that I've not just been fighting for gays to have the right to marry for two decades; I've also been fighting for them to have the right not to marry, if they so choose. And that applies to Bert and Ernie.
Another reader:
I'm going to go out on a limb and defend J.J. Abrams. A gay relationship in the new Star Trek film would indeed feel distracting and heavy-handed. And it has nothing to do with Star Trek or homosexuality, but the form of feature length film itself. Good films are tightly packed arguments with a clear central thesis – even if that thesis is as simple as 'to save the galaxy, you have to be willing to break the rules.' I agree with Alyssa Rosenburg that Abrams' Star Trek remake seems very disconnected from its original thesis, but it's that same reasoning that leads me to defend Abrams. A commentary on gay rights simply doesn't feel congruent with Abrams' vision of Star Trek - a vision that has admittedly revitalized the franchise (I myself was not a fan).
But I also want to make a larger point about Star Trek, feature film, and gay characters/commentary. The Star Trek movies have never been as good as the television counterpart. There are plenty of arguments why, but I think that the core thesis of Star Trek is better conveyed through daily life and can't fit into a two-hour popcorn flick. And when it comes to gay characters or sub-plots – in Star Trek or anywhere else – I think television is a far better place to have them. Feature length films (especially blockbusters) have a much higher risk of turning gay characters into superficial token pieces. On television, gay characters can become part of the fabric of the world. They become part of the daily life.
If you want to make gay commentary in film, it feels like you should be making something like Milk – something tight and focused on what it wants to say. Why stuff it into a sci-fi action thriller? Was the world any richer when female or African American presidents were tossed into similar fluff? Movies will only sensationalize or caricature in such a short time span. Television, on the other hand, has weekly breathing room to let you see, laugh, and grow with a character. We can spend years getting to know a character and one day learn that he is gay. Or see the gay couple next door and slowly warm up to them. What can Star Trek give us? A kiss? Two men holding hands? Is it worth it?
The above scene from Lost, a long-running series created by Abrams, seems to be the only one featuring an interaction between gays. Here is how blogger Brian Juergens reacted at the time:
Yes, after four seasons and countless plot twists (including one pink herring) it was revealed last night that one of the show's 4,397 characters is a gay homosexual. … There had been hints to Tom's gayness previously (he had mentioned that Kate "wasn't his type" once before) but this is the first concrete evidence. We also learn that Mr. [Tom] Friendly (played by M.C. Gainey) makes it off the island and tracks down Michael in Manhattan, and has at least found time to clean up and pick up a dapper boytoy named Arturo. He gives a suicidal Michael a beat-down and then breaks the news to him that the island won't let him kill himself. Michael learns that the wreckage of the flight has been found and goes to Tom's hotel room, where Tom asks Arturo to excuse them. They share a quick corner-mouth-peck and Tom gives Michael a look that says, "one word and I'll kick your ass again." He tells Michael that he doesn't make it to the mainland too often and when he does he likes to indulge himself.
The Dish 