Ming-Na (Camille Wray)
Beware of minor SPOILERS for the upcoming episode “Life” in the report below.
The third Stargate series will go where Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis didn’t: It will have gay characters. Stargate Universe series creators Robert C. Cooper and Brad Wright told fans during their stage panel at Creation Entertainment’s official Vancouver Stargate convention earlier this month.
“There are at least one and potentially more gay characters on Universe,” Cooper said in answer to a fan’s question.
Wright added, “There’s actually two.”
One of those characters is Camille Wray, the I.O.A. representative on board the Destiny, new casting documents reveal. The character is played by actress Ming-Na.
In the show’s seventh episode, “Life,” viewers will meet Wray’s long-time partner back on Earth, Sharon. The character is listed as a lead guest, and possibly recurring. Camille uses the Destiny’s long-range communications device to return home to Sharon for a brief respite.
Stargate Atlantis did have a few gay characters itself, at least in the minds of the producers — though it never made it onto the screen. Executive producer Joseph Mallozzi has stated that character of Alicia Vega was written to be a lesbian (story). But after her introduction in the Season Five premiere, she was quickly killed off in just her second appearance (“Whispers”).
Mallozzi also said that there was another character on Atlantis he always thought was gay, though the right time (read: not forced) to reveal it on screen never materialized.
The decision to include gay characters on Universe was born from the desire to focus the show on its characters and their relationships with one another.
“This goes towards our goal to make the characters on Universe as complex and complicated and realistic and identifiable as we can, to as many people as we can,” Cooper said. “And that’s not just a desire for ratings. That’s the desire to portray humanity, and make a show that is saying something about who we are.”
Stargate Universe premieres this fall on SCI FI Channel in the U.S., Sky1 in the U.K. and SPACE in Canada! Keep your browser locked on GateWorld’s own SGU Launch Center for more in the weeks ahead.
(Thanks to Morjana for the contributing)
©2006-2009 GateWorld.net. All rights reserved. This material may not be reprinted without written consent from GateWorld. Click here to learn more.
one of the directors commented on children of the gods and how it should not have had the nudity in it because in his opinion stargate was always intended to be a family sci fi ( I belive it was Brad Wright, but not sure, Im searching the forums now)
cypher123 | April 20 @ 3:02 pmIf this show become Star Gay-T it will ruin the show for a majority of people who are repulsed by this stuff.. whoever is pushing this is having some type of mental problem and making us all look at it. Bringing it out on front pages on the wrong venue is wrong. Whatever cause these people are pushing is going to backfire. Those that want this info can go seek it, as they probably know where to go look for it. If I am looking for some deviant desire, I do not come here and post it on the front page of website devoted to Sci-Fi shows… and rub it into other peoples faces..
And then you say if you don’t want to see it, don’t click on the link.. I say don’t put the link here to begin with, there are probably other websites that cater to this stuff, I say go post those articles there… it would make sense to go sing to the choir, this is not the choir..
retiredat44 | April 20 @ 3:06 pm@retiredat44 that is a tad unfair the link is todo with Stargate at least it’s not a link to a gay porn site for goodness-sake. You are entitled to your opinion but still, it’s a tad unfair and discriminatory to expect a site on stargate news to not show a piece of news because it has the word gay in that said I don’t think if 2 minor characters are gay it deserves an article.
kzap333 | April 20 @ 3:10 pm@ZJW
cypher123 | April 20 @ 3:11 pmCheck out this interview with Brad wright and his comments. http://www.gateworld.net/interviews/breaking_the_ice_part_2.shtml
@Darren Sumner: From the Article blurb: “Camille uses the Destiny’s long-range communications device to return home to Sharon for a brief respite”
Your Comments: “40-something couple in a long-term, committed relationship, and there are no hints of any bedroom scenes.”
So in your words, would you explain what a “brief respite” means? And, it was okay with the IOC and SGC, for Camille to come over for a “Brief respite” with her lover (hehehehe) a kind of space conjugal visit of sorts? Oh wow, this story almost writes itself. and the Nastification continues…
US06154 | April 20 @ 3:20 pmI didn’t bother reading it but as soon as you mentioned it i recall his disapproval of the nudity in ‘Children of the Gods’. I probably don’t have a good idea of what qualifies as a ‘family show’ anyways as i’m a college student. With the emphasis on pushing SGU into ‘darker’ territory for the franchise though i don’t see how this pushes this outside the realm of ‘family’ TV – it seems as if this show was not created with ‘family’ in mind. Then again – i don’t know why having gay characters would make it less family unless you were somewhat opposed to it.
ZJW | April 20 @ 3:22 pmLet me just add that to the people making comments that “it’s just one character” and that “it’s just one episode of a series” Did we read the same article? The article comments that “There are at least one and POTENTIALLY MORE characters that are gay” – this is from Cooper. Wright said that there are TWO characters who are gay, not one. So we have two and potentially more characters who are. And Wray’s partner, Sharon, was mentioned to be “a lead guest, and possibly recurring” which means it’ll be more than one episode. Please read the article before makign comments.
Browncoat1984 | April 20 @ 3:23 pmCthulhu! Comments pretty much doubled since I checked in about 12 hours ago, though most of them were by functional illiterates worried about “Teh Gay” contaminating their show.
It may be difficult to understand that gay fans watch SF — I should know, I run a website for gay fans of SF, Fantasy and Horror — but for many, it’s probably even more difficult to understand that gay people, who participate actively and openly in every other aspect of modern society, including the military, are equally interesting sources of character for SF tales. They, we, are part of the real — well, real fictional — landscape,too.
The world has grown up. The old wives tales of predatory gays prowling parking lots or psychologically diseased homosexuals in need of shock treatment have been seen for the idiotic nonsense it actually is. SGU has grown up too, though it being STARGATE, I don’t expect any BSG level darkness and despair. “Dark” in the SG universe is 5PM in the afternoon. Daylight Savings Time.
As I mentioned before, I’m excited how these characters are portrayed. Is it going to just be the relatively safe depiction of lesbian characters in SF, done to death and is easily palatable to male driven audiences, or will it also include gay male characters, far less seen, mixing and matching it up on the adventures that await?
I guess we’ll know with the next character announcement.
doorQdotCom | April 20 @ 3:27 pmafter reading the news release, my first reaction was to condem, but after having some time to think about it,i am going to adopt the (wait and see) attitude.
However, the bit about her using the long range something-or other, bothers me. We were told that they would not be allowed to get home in “ANY” form. so that should mean a long range communication device, that allows her to go home for a quick respite.
also, the fact they have her partner on for a recurring character, has me wondering if they are going to pull a “Lost” kind of tv show, and do a lot of flashbacks, so that we get a good look at the characters and what has made them who they are.
and them outing a character, and then saying that (there were two of them on atlantis) seems to me that they are just pulling a (JK Rowling and outing the Dumbldore of the closet.) it seems to me that they are doing and saying these things for the reaction of the shows followers and the media they are going to get for it.
we shall see.
mudbloodpotter | April 20 @ 3:41 pmWonderful, I’m glad to see they’ve been including gay characters now. It shows progression, progression we need.
Hajhaabotbea | April 20 @ 3:49 pmMy bigger problem with SGU at this point is that they still don’t want to make it stand on its own. Why are RDA, Shanks, and Tapping guest starring? I LOVED their characters, but I don’t WANT to see them here. I want SGU to be its own show.
ZhaneEndrick | April 20 @ 3:58 pmIn response to Hajhaabotbea, please explain how it shows progression and how its progression we need?
Browncoat1984 | April 20 @ 4:03 pmThis is annoying. I mean I don’t hate gay people. I hate their lifestyle choice. I’m not gonna spit on you because you are homosexual but I’m not gonna sit by and accept it. It’s ridiculous that they are doing this mostly because of the big deal they are making out of it. My beliefs aside, they are just trying to say that they are special because they have a lesbian as a prominent character in their show. It’s a dumb move and will probably hurt the show. I mean they will lose viewers over this. What makes me even more upset is some of the comments. Several of the people who are in support of this decision are angry at those who are against it. Why? What do you care if I don’t agree with you? Someone said that we who are against it are ignorant. So basically when someone disagrees with you it’s ignorance? That sounds like a pretty ignorant statement to me. If the shoe was on the other foot and there was a Christian character in the show the same people who are calling us ignorant would probably be angry and scream about how “stupid” the decision is. I don’t agree with Homosexuality, you do. I don’t hate you for that so why does it seem like you hate me for my beliefs?
Wolf-man | April 20 @ 4:09 pmWolf-man made me think of a point why do shows always show relationships but never religion?
kzap333 | April 20 @ 4:17 pmWhen was the last time we saw an SG character go to church, other than a wedding or a funeral and yet there are more Christians in the world than gays.
I’m not saying I want to see religions scenes but I’d rather that than relationship scenes.
Wow. Okay, I don’t know where to start! I’m really saddened by the ignorance I’m seeing here (this comment is not addressed to EVERY poster who is unhappy about the news, just to be clear… we have the right to disagree, but there have been some really discriminatory/insulting remarks made).
First of all, everyone seems to be up-in-arms about SGU being all about “relationships.” I certainly agree that I don’t want SGU to be a “who’s sleeping with who” week-by-week affair. That’s not why I watch, and that’s not what I want to see. But I don’t see how having a gay character(s) autmatically equals “all sex, all relationships, all the time.” They mention that this particular character is already involved in a long-term relationship, WITH SOMEONE ON EARTH, who is mentioned as a GUEST CHARACTER. How is this different than the set-up with Elizabeth Wier on SGA? When the series began, she was involved in a relationship with a man on Earth that pre-dated the beginning of the series. That hardly made SGA a “soap opera” of relationships. You barely ever saw the guy, or even heard mention of him. I can’t even remember his name! John Sheppard got laid more than Elizabeth, and he was portrayed as single. Daniel Jackson was MARRIED, for pete’s sake. So this character has a long-term partner. Everette Young has been stated to be married, and part of his character arch would seem to be his desire to return to his wife (it says right in his character bio that he requested a transfer back to Earth to be with her). If long-standing, loving, committed relationships are so bad for the series, why aren’t folks freaking out about that? HOW IS IT DIFFERENT, OTHER THAN THEIR GENDER?
Also, let’s think about the definition of “relationships.” The article states that the producers wanted to “focus the show on its characters and their relationships with one another.” Does this necessarily mean that they’re talking about romantic/sexual realtionships? No! I have a relationship with my friends, my co-workers, my neighbors, my family – none of which are sexual or romantic. One could easily argue that the other SG franchises had a focus on relationships as well. One of the things that I LOVED about SG1 and SGA were the well-developed, sincere relationships between the team members. I loved the friendships, the banter, and the affection between Jack and Daniel, or John and Rodney. Those were RELATIONSHIPS. Can you imagine SG1/SAG without those connections? How boring and dry! Personally, while I don’t want SGU to be a sci-fi version of One Tree Hill (shudder…), I want the characters to have relationships. I want them to have friendships, rivalries, teamwork. Relationships does not automatically mean sex and romance!
And no, people aren’t announcing characters as “straight.” Why? Because EVERY character in the history of TV, which exception to recent times, has been heterosexual! It’s not newsworthy because it’s the norm. It was a big deal when African Americans were first cast in major TV/movie roles, and while it’s getting to be more “normal,” it’s still noticable when a major character is gay.
People are so upset about it being “in their face,” and don’t understand why it matters to have gay characters. It matters to me, for sure, because I’m a lesbain. It matters to me, to see characters that I can relate to on TV. It means that gay and lesbians, as a population, are being AKNOWLEDGED. We’ve been discriminated against for centuries. We are STILL denied equal rights in this country. Seeing ourselves on TV is a small sign that we are being more accepted, that more of the people in this country see us as HUMAN BEINGS, an that we have stories worth telling, as well.
Also, what everyone seems to be missing here is that if you actuall READ the above article, the comment about the gay characters was made IN RESPONSE TO A FAN’S QUESTION during a panel. Cooper and Wright did not hold a press conference to boast about their gay characters. Someone asked, they told. And Gateworld, in their role of gathering even the tiniest bit of news about SG, wrote it into an article. Had a fan not asked the right question, you probably wouldn’t even know about the gay characters until it came up in the series. Gateworld is responsible for making this into a news item (which, admittedly is their job), NOT Cooper and Wright.
Do I want SGU to be about everyone sleeping with everyone else? HELL NO. Am I happy to see a gay character? YES. I would have watched SGU regarless – it’s just icing on the cake.
But jeeze, take it easy folks! Let’s give the series a chance, rather than looking for reasons to hate it before it’s even aired!
*steps down off soap box*
redlotus | April 20 @ 4:25 pmI think it shows progression that they’re finally having a gay character in the show and revealing it. It will hopefully enter into people’s conscious and subconscious more and expand their mind to see there’s nothing at all wrong with gay people. And this will help the collective conscious/unconscious, every little bit does, to allow gay marriage in more and more states and to treat gay people equally. It’s progression we need, because the goal is equality for all life, and I think only with unity can we achieve everything we dream of, and we can all evolve into a new consciousness as a species, to be one mind, not divided minds. We can love.
Hajhaabotbea | April 20 @ 4:32 pmredlotus, I think I love you a bit. Everyone needs to read your post.
Tremolo | April 20 @ 4:34 pm@ redlotus – how are you being denied equal rights in this country? Last I checked we all have the same exact rights.
Browncoat1984 | April 20 @ 4:43 pm@redlotus
kzap333 | April 20 @ 4:43 pmThe reason I don’t think there should be an entire news article on this is that it should NOT be news worthy.
In an ideal world it shouldn’t matter whether you are gay or not the fact that an entire article is written about it says to me it does matter which I think is wrong I don’t think anyone should care if there are gay character in TV show like no one should care if there are gay people in real life, why because the fact that you are paying them extra attention means you are discriminating whether you know it or not.
If a character gets more press than another because or there race, color, creed or sexuality then you are discriminating.
That’s why I didn’t think the article should have been written.
Ok, I’m sorry, but I have to comment on Wolfman and retiredat44’s comments. Wolf-man, you are upset becuase you feel you are being attacked for disagreeing. You don’t want people calling you “ignorant” for disagreeing. Yes, you have a right to disagree. Yes, you are more than entitled to your opinion. But *you* are using this forum to attack others, and to make blatantly discriminitory statements about homosexuals. It’s one thing to say, “I’m not happy about this, I disagree.” That’s all fine and dandy. But to say “I mean I don’t hate gay people. I hate their lifestyle choice. I’m not gonna spit on you because you are homosexual but I’m not gonna sit by and accept it”…. You’re not going to “sit by and accept it?” What does that even mean?
It’s not a lifestyle choice. It’s a part of who we are. At what point did you choose to be heterosexual? If sexuality is trully a choice, are you saying that you could “choose” to become gay? I’m assuming that you would give a big ol’ NO to that. I can’t wake up tomorrow and choose to be straight any more than you could suddenly choose to be gay. So when you say that you don’t hate me, just my “choice,” what you really end up saying is that you hate who I am. *THAT* is the part that gets people upset with your comments.
And retiredat44… Well, on second thought I’m not even going to waste my time trying to respond to that. You clearly have an atiquated and twisted view on what gay means and would prefer to fling around terms like “deviant desires” and “mental probelm” rahter than have a calm and rational discussion.
redlotus | April 20 @ 4:45 pm@redlotus
kzap333 | April 20 @ 4:47 pmJust because a character is part of a minority doesn’t mean they should get extra publicity that IS discrimination.
Wolf-Man, if as you point out in reference to gays and lesbians, “hate their lifestyle choice,” I suggest you put down the video game controller, the remote control, or the comic book and pay attention in school or even to the larger world to which you are a part.
Neither homosexuality or heterosexuality is a choice. Some other things that aren’t choices? Eye color, hair color, and handedness.
Now learning? That is a choice.
doorQdotCom | April 20 @ 4:48 pmOkay doorQdotCom how is homosexuality not a choice? Explain.
Browncoat1984 | April 20 @ 4:50 pmI do not mind a lesbian character at all as long as they treat the character’s relationships like like any other. If they try to ram the characters sexuality in your face every week i might have more of an issue with it.
dreadtech | April 20 @ 4:51 pmTremolo, thanks. :)
Browncoat1984, as far as rights go, in all but a few states (including the one I live in) I am not allowed to get married. There are over 1,000 legal rights and privilages that are accessable ONLY to married individuals. Also, in most states it is not illegal to deny someone housing or emplyment based on sexual orientation. It is (rightfully so) illegal to deny someone these things based on gender, race, or religion, but it is apparently “OK” to do so based on who a person loves. In Arkansas, they recently passed a law saying that single parents cannot foster or adopt children. Since they do not allow same-sex marraige, this means that gays are not allowed to adopt children or be foster parents. There are a hundred other subtle laws or loopholes that deny us privilages and rights that heterosexuals enjoy, but you see my point.
kzap333, I think that the key phrase in you comment is “In an ideal world.” I think we can all agree that this is NOT an ideal world. I can see that we disagree, but I appreciate you phrasing your opinion in a respectful and calm manner.
redlotus | April 20 @ 4:52 pm