Vicious Libel

Jan 15, 2012 12:12

In an article in today's UK Sunday Times (which I can't link to because they charge for online content), ZQ says the following ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 51

poziomeczka January 15 2012, 12:35:49 UTC
because what...somehow that would make him less who he is?
OH PUR-LEASE.

That's rather worrying, really.

Reply

beederiffic January 15 2012, 13:04:37 UTC
In context:

The interviewer wonders if ZQ coming out means that Spock and Uhura's kiss "gains extra topspin from Quinto's recent revelations."

"Ah, but you're doing the very thing we were just talking about [the difficulty of leading men coming out]," he responds. "You're making an assumption about a character based on what you know about my sexuality. Spock is not gay. There's nothing gay about him."

One of the things I loved most about Gene was how he wanted his future worlds to be beyond prejudice and binary definitions like that i.e. you're either gay or you're not, and how he refused to definitively define what, precisely, the relationship between Jim and Spock was, other than it definitely being love. Leonard and, to some extent, Shat have respected that. I think it's a real shame that ZQ hasn't, too.

Reply

poziomeczka January 15 2012, 15:12:24 UTC
One of the things I loved most about Gene was how he wanted his future worlds to be beyond prejudice and binary definitions like that i.e. you're either gay or you're not, and how he refused to definitively define what, precisely, the relationship between Jim and Spock was, other than it definitely being love. Leonard and, to some extent, Shat have respected that. I think it's a real shame that ZQ hasn't, too.That is exactly what I felt he was going against. I am well aware of the fact that he does not want to be viewed, as an actor, through the prism of his sexuality. I think it is really difficult for leading men to come out since frequently it equals losing their status (like Rupert Everett for example), and I think it also tends to be harder for American actors than their British colleagues (though maybe I'm just stricken by a couple of really comforting examples) but nevertheless I feel like he is literally going against everything Gene strove to create, a world where boundaries blurred, where they plainly *did not* matter. He ( ... )

Reply

beederiffic January 15 2012, 15:18:11 UTC
The interview and article seemed both supportive and eager to give him a chance to explain why he decided to come out when he did, and he was as eloquent and engaged as ever on that subject. Which is why the abrupt "Spock's not gay" seemed so bizarre.

I wish I could link to the article, I'm too busy to type up the whole thing. It didn't seem like he was at all upset or annoyed by the discussing surrounding his coming out. IDK.

Reply


misc_plinks January 15 2012, 12:59:18 UTC
Have to admit the snippet I read lead me more to believe ZQ was trying to explain that, just cause he's gay doesn't mean every character he's playing is automatically gay, too. But then I go with 'not gay' not automatically meaning 'heterosexual', either. Spock could well be bisexual or pansexual. Going by compatibility instead of gender for partner choice, if/when possible, could be quite suited to the Vulcan ideals.

But yeah, rambling. Just saying I partially get where the not gay comes from. Would have been better to tag a not heterosexual on there as well though. Or a general wtf does it matter?

Reply

beederiffic January 15 2012, 13:16:06 UTC
Personally I think it's reaching to think that "There is nothing gay about him" meant he could be referring to bi- or pansexuality. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt but it seemed very Not Gay, Not Even A Tiny Bit, Not Even For Funsies to me. But you could be right.

It was probably just a blurt on his part.

Reply

misc_plinks January 15 2012, 13:23:46 UTC
I agree it's very badly worded. But I hope that happened in the heat of the moment while ZQ was concentrating more on the whole 'gay actors can only play gay characters' implication, which must be seriously bothersome for an actor at best.

But yes, I do think this one has a very high likelihood of coming back to bite him, cause worded as it is, it is offensive. The way I've seen ZQ so far though I just have a hard time believing he actually meant it that way, or thought about all the implications when saying that (or the long history of Kirk and Spock^^).

Reply

beederiffic January 15 2012, 13:28:58 UTC
Oh, he definitely was going for the 'Me being gay doesn't mean Spock is' angle, but how clumsy! I also agree that it's surprising to see this coming from ZQ -- However, he's made disapproving noises about fanfic before, so who knows, maybe he honestly does believe that we should all think Spock's Absolutely Not Gay At All?

Someone needs to spank some sense into that boy. Any volunteers?

Reply


daffodelias January 15 2012, 13:47:41 UTC
Not only is that poorly worded, it doesn't sound like something he would say anyway, looking at the way he normally expresses himself in interviews. It sounds clunky and awkward. And where are the ten-dollar words?!

*side-eyes interview*

Reply

beederiffic January 15 2012, 14:05:46 UTC
And at no point did he say he either felt privileged, honoured or grateful.

I think you're onto something.

Reply

daffodelias January 15 2012, 14:10:34 UTC
Right? And with all his talk of Spock's ~duality~, I am totally side-eyeing him saying "not gay" without a "not straight either" qualifier.

But no matter what he did say, I feel bad that he's going to have to deflect that question so much. :(

Reply

beederiffic January 15 2012, 14:16:19 UTC
But no matter what he did say, I feel bad that he's going to have to deflect that question so much.

Agreed, as he was there to talk about Margin Call rather than Trek, but the article was generally positive about how progressive it is to finally have an out gay man in a leading movie franchise. In an activist sense, he should be pleased and proud of himself that he's getting the issue out there and talked about, but personally I can see it getting old fast when you want to talk about bankers and Jeremy Irons.

Reply


misc_plinks January 15 2012, 13:49:33 UTC
Dear ZQ, if you do not like fanficcers&their dedication to writing about what they love, you've kinda picked the wrong fandom to work in! XD

And indeed, T'hy'la is just one of very many examples that disprove his argument I'd say.

Reply

beederiffic January 15 2012, 14:08:28 UTC
T'Hy'la should at least persuade him to not set himself up as some kind of Tao of Spock's Peen.

Which someone should totally create. But not ZQ!

Reply

misc_plinks January 15 2012, 14:21:15 UTC
Yeah, coming into a franchise&fandom as old and well established as this&then trying to be an authority by dissing one of the main pairings&pretty much the whole philosophy of said fandom-not a smart move, at all. XD

Seriously, the longer I think about it, the more I'm inclined to say he'll get major flag for this one, especially if the interviewer didn't rephrase his answers.
Then again, if that truly is his answer I guess he deserves all the flag that's coming anyway. Though I really hope this is all some kind of misunderstanding tbh.

Reply


sofiawonderland January 15 2012, 13:58:20 UTC
I understand where he was coming from-probably just trying to say that just because he's gay it doesn't mean he's going to play all his characters as gay-, but still, it feels quite clumsy as a statement and not very Zach. I don't know, I guess he tends to be less blunt about things, and this feels a bit as if he blurted it out (maybe out of frustration of being asked things like that frequently?). I don't know.

Reply

beederiffic January 15 2012, 14:09:57 UTC
Definitely a blurt. We all have off days. Poor boo needs some downtime i.e. Chris sexings, and then he'd be all 'Spock is so gay! Wheee!'

Reply


Leave a comment

Up