So, read an article regarding the new Star Trek movie coming out, and some reactions and responses from George Takei.

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/07/07/george-takei-says-making-sulu-gay-doesnt-honor-roddenberrys-star-trek-vision/


I guess what this thread is about is, do actors have some sort of ownership over a part, after they've left the role? In the article, Mr. Takei comes out against the new film's direction, citing that he doesn't think Roddenberry would have wanted it that way, which may be a reasonable argument.

While I think it's nice that the current filmmakers contacted George regarding Sulu, should his input really matter? Does he still have any kind of "ownership" over the role?

When I think Sulu, I think of Mr. Takei's portrayal. I also think his insight into how Asians and homosexuals are portrayed in popular media is worthwhile considering his experience and activism.

Pretending that a character is just a ... well costume that you can put on whoever and write them however is convenient, that is a very propritary attitude - but it doesn't have anything to do with why the character is memorable and enduringly interesting to so many.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I guess what this thread is about is, do actors have some sort of ownership over a part, after they've left the role?

I don't think so, either literally or figuratively. However, if you're casting/scripting a part previously played by someone else, presumably you're doing so because there is an appetite to see that part\story\IP, and so it would be foolish not to consider whether what you're doing fits with the nature of the character or not.

I would say there is more of a duty to be true to the character than to the actor - for example, I think Jodie Foster was right to pass on Hannibal for the (book) ending because it felt very, very much out of character for Clarice Starling... even if that's what Thomas Harris himself wrote. In this case, I think Harris himself wasn't true to the character. However, he owns it, and it's his right to make foolish choices.

I hope what I posted made sense because I am not 100% sure I did.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I guess what this thread is about is, do actors have some sort of ownership over a part, after they've left the role?

I don't think so, either literally or figuratively. However, if you're casting/scripting a part previously played by someone else, presumably you're doing so because there is an appetite to see that part\story\IP, and so it would be foolish not to consider whether what you're doing fits with the nature of the character or not.

I would say there is more of a duty to be true to the character than to the actor - for example, I think Jodie Foster was right to pass on Hannibal for the (book) ending because it felt very, very much out of character for Clarice Starling... even if that's what Thomas Harris himself wrote. In this case, I think Harris himself wasn't true to the character. However, he owns it, and it's his right to make foolish choices.

I hope what I posted made sense because I am not 100% sure I did.

I get what you're saying... and I think, based on the article that I posted, Takei is basing his argument in that Roddenberry wrote Sulu a particular way, and that particular way was straight. While I'm no mind reader, his comments that he feels honored, but disagrees with the choice, suggests to me that the current movie producers are making Sulu a homosexual in honor of Takei's contributions, not the character.

My thought is, "don't make Sulu gay. Make Sulu bi."

Then it becomes closer to a case of "the road not travelled" as opposed to more of a redefining of the character.

 Compel wrote:
My thought is, "don't make Sulu gay. Make Sulu bi."

Personally, I come down more on the side of "make Sulu awesome" regardless of what his sexual preferences are. Part of the whole point of Star Trek is that it shows a future where humanity has moved beyond defining someone by their race, gender, or sexual preference. What does it matter who Sulu likes to sleep with, as long as he can still be a sword waving badass?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
a future where humanity has moved beyond defining someone by their race, gender, or sexual preference

Good point, would anyone even be "gay" (or "straight") anymore? I mean, yes, people would still have sexual preferences. But rather than tying those preferences to some kind of sweeping politicized identity, wouldn't they just be more like, well I am attracted to Person A rather than I am only attracted to Category X?

Anyhow, the counterargument is Star Trek and other fictions should be at the service of the here and now rather than their own worlds because if you do not see yourself represented in Hollywood-manufactured products then you are oppressed.

This Sulu has been gay for two movies and no one really cared and even now it is more of just an acknowledgement than a major plot point. I suppose that sort of proves the point that people are still sensitive about homosexuality and treat it as "other" even if it was been this way for some time; at least making people acknowledge it has created a discussion.

He was gay in the other two movies? Or are you reading this change backwards?

 Manchu wrote:
He was gay in the other two movies? Or are you reading this change backwards?

According to the writers it has always been this way in this alternate universe, it just wasn't important. It wasn't like Sulu was straight in Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) then suddenly was hit with The Gay™ in this upcoming movie.

It is entirely possible for a fictional character to be "hit with The Gay™" - I guess we just give the writers the benefit of the doubt they hit Sulu with it before now. And I think this is getting to why Mr Takei objects.

 Manchu wrote:
It is entirely possible for a fictional character to be "hit with The Gay™" - I guess we just give the writers the benefit of the doubt they hit Sulu with it before now. And I think this is getting to why Mr Takei objects.

Can we really trade mark The Gay? I find that phrasing hilarious. "Oh X can't come into work today, he got hit with The Gay"

Sure, it is ridiculous - no real person is ever "hit with The Gay™" ... so to the extent that writers do this to fictional characters, it can undermine verisimilitude. In this case, I think it just emphasizes how hollow and fake Abrams Trek, or whatever you want to call it nowadays, has always been and will continue to be.

So, earlier today I read Simon Pegg's "rebuttal" to George Takei's rebuttal, and while I may not entirely agree with either side, I think Simon's reasoning is still sound.

In short, he admits that, yes, making Sulu specifically gay was an homage to Takei. BUT, the writers felts that Roddenberry would have done that in the 60s, if the social and political climate had allowed. On top of all of this, Mr. Pegg is of the opinion that if they did take George's advice and "create a new, gay, character" that they would be falling prey to tokenism, which is something they are very much trying to avoid.

They'd rather use an alternate timeline to show the possibility that, in an alternate world anyone could be gay. In this one, it's Sulu. They are showing an already known entity in this established character, and altering this one thing (I've noticed in comments sections that Sulu has a child in the Original timeline, and apparently this is going to also be the case in the alternate one as well... but I guess we'll see) about the character.

Pegg's rebuttal was all kinds of awesome. You can disagree with that artistic reasoning, but you have to admit it was very solid.

Not a Trek fan personally, but I do enjoy the spirit of the universe. Amidst all the gore and horror I normally enjoy, its nice to see utopian scifi.

Also, big fan of Takei as person, and huge fan of Pegg's work, and he absolutely killed it there.

 whembly wrote:
Pegg's rebuttal was all kinds of awesome. You can disagree with that artistic reasoning, but you have to admit it was very solid.

You're right on that... Thinking on it more, I think where I disagree with both Pegg and Takei is when they say things like "Gene would have done it X way." I mean, Gene Roddenberry has been gone for how many years? Who really knows exactly what he would have done, had he been around making films today?

When you remember that the Kirk/Uhuru kiss was the first interracial kiss on US TV, it tells you two things; how repressed Americas still was in the mid 1960s, and how Roddenberry was pushing that boundary.

I wonder if any of the other original cast members, and other associates of Roddenberry, have any insight into his thinking of the time.

Perhaps it's true that he wanted to make a gay character and felt it was a step too far.

Whatever Simon Pegg says, the new film could have made Sulu straight and introduced another character who was gay. If you're going to have a character be gay because you want a gay character, it can be seen as tokenism whether it's a new character or a revised old one, or it can be seen as inclusiveness and reflecting modern society.

Kirk should have been made gay.

It would be tokenism in it's truest form in respect for the Trek universe. Ever since The Next Generation, it's been clear that humankind (in general) just plain doesn't care who you sleep with. They are past that long ago, what with the possibility for inter-species sex being perfectly ok.

Noone on that ship cares who the helmsman sleeps with. Pretty soon it will be ok for an enlisted man to have angry, bruising sex with a hot klingon woman- or a gorramn freaking shapeshifter! Just being plain old gay for another human would be a boring everyday thing.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Pretty soon it will be ok for an enlisted man to have angry, bruising sex with a hot klingon woman

Go on...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Kirk should have been made gay.

Spock was all kinds of gay for Kirk in Into Darkness, Pegg should have had him come out in this nexxt one.

 Ahtman wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Pretty soon it will be ok for an enlisted man to have angry, bruising sex with a hot klingon woman

Go on...

If Quark can pull it off then so can a Red Shirt

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Pretty soon it will be ok for an enlisted man to have angry, bruising sex with a hot klingon woman

Go on...

If Quark can pull it off then so can a Red Shirt

Thats the one I was remembering, though I think Harry Kim got some, too, when they encountered the klingon ship on Voyager.

Dax and Worf got married, didn't they?

 jreilly89 wrote:


Can we really trade mark The Gay? I find that phrasing hilarious. "Oh X can't come into work today, he got hit with The Gay"

Well, there's this.

Psychiatry has not always been kind to people whose sexuality veers from the societal norm. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness in many countries as late as the mid-20th century—if it was not classified as an outright crime. Even Sweden, that Scandinavian bastion of openness and equality, identified being gay as a disorder as late as 1979.

That year, a group of Swedes took advantage of the legal framework that made being gay an illness and called in sick to work, claiming their homosexuality as the reason. One woman, from the southern province of Smålandeven, managed to get Social Security benefits for calling in gay.

In the future you will be able to have imaginary virtual sex with a solid hologram of an intelligent waveform.

I agree with George Takei about how they should have left Sulu alone. Making the character gay at this point is very cynical on the part of Paramount. If they wanted to do this, they should have done it from the beginning. Doing it now smacks of insincerity and looks like a blatant attempt to pander to the LGBT community and get them to come to the theaters to drive up lagging box office receipts.

 AegisGrimm wrote:


Thats the one I was remembering, though I think Harry Kim got some, too, when they encountered the klingon ship on Voyager.

Harry Kim actually ran away, but Neelix was ready and able

This is like the most "Star Trek" thing... innit?

You have actors from 2 different timestreams arguing over what's canon...

"When did Sulu find the time to have a family"

Well in the JJverse I guess his daughter won't be helmsman of the enterprise B.

Making Sulu gay feels forced. Star trek has always been very much about people being attracted to people, not being labelled as one thing or another. I mean Dax hooked up with men, women, Klingon's and after a body swap a genetically engineered super human.

As other have said in a world when you can get drunk and hook up with a green skinned alien who cares if you have a man crush on that guy from engineering.
Do we even know for sure Orion slave girls don't have man bits as well? Maybe that's why their so much fun.

But DS9 was the worst series, and the only good part of it was Dax.

I'm confused as to why Sulu's sexuality, or anyone's for that matter, is even being mentioned. Unless his sexuality is in some way an important plot point (which would be a very bad thing) who cares?

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Kirk should have been made gay.

Spock was all kinds of gay for Kirk in Into Darkness, Pegg should have had him come out in this nexxt one.

This. It would have added to all the weird interspecies bromance, especially if it remained unrequited.

Simon Pegg is wrong about tokenism. Changing an existing character to be 'the gay' is tokenism. A characters evolution is not decided by a desire for representation, it follows a path on screen. When they had HopeMan kill Zod in MoS they said it was the natural progression of that characters arc at that point. Which I suppose is an indication if how poorly they had written a beloved character. If they had got to the end and the character had delivered an inspiring moral lesson it would have felt forced- much like it will when Sulu queens it up.

They had brought in new characters for the movies- blonde bra wearing girl, grizzled RoboCop starfleet guy, Scotty's new alien sidekick. No reason they couldn't have made a believable character important to the plot and have him also be attracted to the same sex.

But Spock was the clear choice from his on screen portrayal and they blew it.

... This would be the same Spock they've shown having a relationship with Uhura yes ?

 Manchu wrote:
Sure, it is ridiculous - no real person is ever "hit with The Gay™" ... so to the extent that writers do this to fictional characters, it can undermine verisimilitude. In this case, I think it just emphasizes how hollow and fake Abrams Trek, or whatever you want to call it nowadays, has always been and will continue to be.

Bingo.

The question will be how they even get an opportunity to show it, in between all of the phaser fire and explosions.

Sulu isn't being "hit with The Gay".

There hasn't been anything in the previous films in the Abrams verse to indicate one sexual orientation or another. Assuming he is straight is just that, an assumption based on the hetero-normative approach to characterisation where straight is often regarded as the default when not given any information.

The fact that it isn't being mentioned until now (and apparently not in any super important way so it could just be a small comment, a picture in Sulu's quarters etc.) just highlights the fact that the Star Trek universe doesn't care about sexual orientation like ours currently does. Let's wait and see how they play it before leaping to any conclusions.

Ya know I suppose that part of the issues that I have in my mind all revolve around how are they gonna handle this....

I mean, is there gonna be a soft interlude scene, with a deep philosophical conversation between Sulu and Kirk, and Kirk simply asks, "how are things with you and [boyfriend's name] doing?"

I kind of think that part of many of our worries is that the film will have a scene where Sulu beams down to the bad guy camps and yells, "Guess what!? I'M GAY!!!! GAAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!" which would certainly be a terrible way for the film makers to reveal to viewers (because surely the crew knows, right?) the sexuality of a character.

Assuming they're not incompetent, it'd probably just be something like a photograph in his quarters, or he's on a video call with him and red alert sounds.

 Compel wrote:
Assuming they're not incompetent, it'd probably just be something like a photograph in his quarters, or he's on a video call with him and red alert sounds.

This is what I'm expecting. When does the film start? Might have them saying goodbye to each other as Sulu boards the Enterprise to begin their latest deployment.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Assuming they're not incompetent, it'd probably just be something like a photograph in his quarters, or he's on a video call with him and red alert sounds.

This is what I'm expecting. When does the film start? Might have them saying goodbye to each other as Sulu boards the Enterprise to begin their latest deployment.

That sounds tasteful, understated and therefore improbable.

To be true to the franchise, wouldn't he have to make out with a green guy in tight underwear only to be disturbed by the green guys roommate, the same roommate that then later makes out with a guy that is currently his frienemy, and then there will be another scene where a guy that turns out to be a stowaway strips down to his tight underwear while changing outfits and then remembers to tell Sulu to turn around after he is already almost naked?

 d-usa wrote:
To be true to the franchise, wouldn't he have to make out with a green guy in tight underwear only to be disturbed by the green guys roommate, the same roommate that then later makes out with a guy that is currently his frienemy, and then there will be another scene where a guy that turns out to be a stowaway strips down to his tight underwear while changing outfits and then remembers to tell Sulu to turn around after he is already almost naked?

You're trying to hard there!

You're better than that!

 Alpharius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To be true to the franchise, wouldn't he have to make out with a green guy in tight underwear only to be disturbed by the green guys roommate, the same roommate that then later makes out with a guy that is currently his frienemy, and then there will be another scene where a guy that turns out to be a stowaway strips down to his tight underwear while changing outfits and then remembers to tell Sulu to turn around after he is already almost naked?

You're trying to hard there!

You're better than that!

I'm not really trying, and better than what? Better than pointing out that it is weird that a potential homosexual Sulu has to be handled and outed with kids gloves by comparing it to the history of the obvious sexuality of Star Trek characters in shows and movies from past to present?

The Abrams Universe has had no problems of any kind with resurrecting Kirk the heterosexual inter-species womanizer, throwing him in bed with one alien woman in underwear in one movie and having a woman in underwear for no reason whatsoever other than "Kirk and audience gets to see chick in underwear" in the other movie.

The Abrams Universe has had no problems of any kind with taking the sexual and romantic tension present between Spock and Uhura that was present in the original series, and turning it into a full on interracial inter-species heterosexual relationship in the movie.

The Original Series had one of the first televised interracial kisses, although in the story it was against both of their wills.

TNG had Riker as the resident womanizer to replace that role of Kirk from TOS.

Deep Space Nine had violent and aggressive interspecies sex between Worf and Dax.

Voyager had 7 of 9 because reasons.

Sex has always been a part of Star Trek. Relationships have always been a part of Star Trek. Boundaries have always been pushed on Star Trek.

Would I be surprised if the Abramsverse Star Trek handles the reveal of a gay character with the same lack of "in your face, he's gay" approach as How To Train Your Dragon 2? Not at all, and that is likely what will happen.

I just find it weird that people are hoping that the one gay character comes out in such a subtle way that it almost makes a mockery of the boundary pushing in your face sexuality of the Star Trek Universe from TOS to the present.

 d-usa wrote:

I just find it weird that people are hoping that the one gay character comes out in such a subtle way that it almost makes a mockery of the boundary pushing in your face sexuality of the Star Trek Universe from TOS to the present.

Its not much of a boundary any more though is it? Gay characters are most definitely mainstream these days.

 d-usa wrote:

Would I be surprised if the Abramsverse Star Trek handles the reveal of a gay character with the same lack of "in your face, he's gay" approach as How To Train Your Dragon 2? Not at all, and that is likely what will happen.

Have to say, that comment really made me laugh

He's still trying too hard!!!

 Crazyterran wrote:
But DS9 was the worst series, and the only good part of it was Dax.

In a thread about retro-fitted tokenist gay characters on Star Trek, this is the comment that crosses the line. DS9 is the best of the various TV series, and literally the only one that can be reasonably watched again today.

 feeder wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
But DS9 was the worst series, and the only good part of it was Dax.

In a thread about retro-fitted tokenist gay characters on Star Trek, this is the comment that crosses the line. DS9 is the best of the various TV series, and literally the only one that can be reasonably watched again today.

Then again DS9 had some real howlers in the first season. Still, with a handful of exceptions, I really liked Voyager more. So there.

Thought bits of Voyager were great (the opening sequence for one!)

The Doc was the stand-out character for me, but generally didn't think the show had as many interesting characters as DS9 (you couldn't list them all!) or the weight of the storyline overall. It also benefited from the lack of Janeway and her inconsistent moralising over that fething prime directive

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I guess what this thread is about is, do actors have some sort of ownership over a part, after they've left the role? In the article, Mr. Takei comes out against the new film's direction, citing that he doesn't think Roddenberry would have wanted it that way, which may be a reasonable argument.

While I think it's nice that the current filmmakers contacted George regarding Sulu, should his input really matter? Does he still have any kind of "ownership" over the role?

No. He has no say.

He might be right that Gene would not have approved this move.

Gene's dead. Gene's family doesn't own the rights anymore. Paramount Pictures, on behalf of CBS, owns the rights to Star Trek movies and TV series.

Just like George Lucas can bitch all he wants about Star Wars: The Force Awakens, it's the same thing. Tough gak. Disney owns Star Wars now. Slap some mouse ears on that Death Star and feth off, George.

I don't think anyone disputes the ownership status of the IP, at least vis-a-vis George Takei. But then again, how many of us really connect to Star Trek as a "property," just as some sort of commerical and/or legal object? For me, Star Trek is about values, stories, and characters - yes including the portrayals. Mssrs. Roddenberry and Takei actually created the character Hikaru Sulu, while Mssrs. Abrams, Lin, and Pegg are riding on their coattails. This really gets to the heart (or rather the empty space where a heart should be) of the reboot con: it's the promise of more of what you love, but they really can't deliver. So it becomes a bait and switch: "well this is our interpretation." OK but who cares. To me, Abrams Trek amounts to very expensive, extremely low quality fan fiction.

 Manchu wrote:
To me, Abrams Trek amounts to very expensive, extremely low quality fan fiction.

To me, the original Rodden-Trek movies, other than Wrath of Khan, can't hold a candle to the rebooted Star Trek.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) Snore fest. It's 2001 a Space Odyssey, but with worse music.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) Best EVAH!
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) Reverend Jim, the Klingon. Meh movie is generous.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) "What if Star Trek Characters were here today?" Fan Fiction written by a 9 year old boy that has whale sheets
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) "What does God need with a starship and a mind-controlling half-Vulcan?" Nothing. Stupid movie.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) "An action movie starring 60 year olds that aren't Stallone, Schwartzinegger, and Dolph Lundron? Riveting". Plenty of slapstick. Like Benny Hill in Space.

The Next Generation films
Star Trek Generations (1994) "fething die, Kirk!" OK, movie.
Star Trek: First Contact (1996) "Another funny, time-traveling Trek." Meh. Piccard had some emotional scenes that didn't suck, though. Also, I'm DTF that borg queen.
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) The boring away mission one.
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) The time Spartacus took over the Romulan Empire in a coup d'etat and Piccard got to drive a dune buggy. Meh.

Star Trek II is not merely a good Star Trek movie or a good sci fi movie; it is a good movie period end of, like Empire Strikes Back for Star Wars. I certainly don't expect any Star Trek movie to ever be as good as that, just as I don't expect any Star Wars film to be as good as ESB. These GREAT films are not the correct measuring stick. And yet Abrams et alia came to the exact opposite conclusion. Into Darkness is merely a bad film, like its predecessor, considered on its own merits. But thanks to aping Wrath of Khan, it comes off as an absolutely terrible film. Setting aside Star Trek II, the next best "original series" film is Star Trek VI - and neither the 2009 film nor Into Darkness come near to being as well thought out, tense, emotionally compelling, or plain enjoyable as Undiscovered Country. Whether the new films are better, just as films, than the likes of Search for Spock or ... shudder ... Insurrection is like asking which can of spoiled sardines smells the worst.

I'd rather see another ambitious failure like TMP than more of the cynical, low-aiming mediocrity that makes Abrams such a 'safe' director.

I totes agree that Wrath of Khan was a great movie in it's own right, regardless of Trek or otherwise.

Yes, there were lots of stinkers in there.

I can't say that I enjoyed Undiscovered Country, but that's OK. We can like different things.

I am really enjoying the Abram's Trek films. They aren't great films, in the grand history of films. However, I find them to be tense and enjoyable SciFi movies.

As kronk pointed out, TMP has often been criticized as cynical. And I don't think the problem is Abrams; Beyond looks as bad/worse, to the point that I'm not going to even see it (and I like Star Trek, generally, enough to have seen both of Nemesis and Into Darkness twice in the cinema). We can still do Star Trek of course - and here I think Mr. Takei was somewhat on the right track - but it's time for new characters. And I think Star Trek needs to be, well, more like Star Trek. There is all kinds of room for gay characters in Star Trek (as Silent Puffin? implied, it wouldn't even be "a thing" at this point) - but making existing character gay in your fan fiction canon is just silly ... especially considering the last movie you did is a love story between Kirk and Spock. At least make one (or both) of them the gay one(s).

Slightly off topic, but I hope the new Star Trek TV Series rumor is true that each season will follow a new crew in a different timeline, and I hope they use different ship names. Like the USS Texas, the USS Eagle 5, etc.

 Manchu wrote:
Star Trek II is not merely a good Star Trek movie or a good sci fi movie; it is a good movie period end of, like Empire Strikes Back for Star Wars. I certainly don't expect any Star Trek movie to ever be as good as that, just as I don't expect any Star Wars film to be as good as ESB. These GREAT films are not the correct measuring stick. And yet Abrams et alia came to the exact opposite conclusion. Into Darkness is merely a bad film, like its predecessor, considered on its own merits. But thanks to aping Wrath of Khan, it comes off as an absolutely terrible film. Setting aside Star Trek II, the next best "original series" film is Star Trek VI - and neither the 2009 film nor Into Darkness come near to being as well thought out, tense, emotionally compelling, or plain enjoyable as Undiscovered Country. Whether the new films are better, just as films, than the likes of Search for Spock or ... shudder ... Insurrection is like asking which can of spoiled sardines smells the worst.

Agree completely.

For me, I would say II and VI are the most worthwhile watching of the originals (IV is not without its charms, but has dated quite badly) and VIII of the Next Generation ones (just an awesome movie period). The "evens good, odds bad" thing applied right up to X which I thought fell a bit short.

The new films are fun, exciting but not really Star Trek. They've taken the ships, the uniforms, the names, but completely missed the soul of what the show was meant to be about. Now I know there are endless, long running arguments about this on movie and ST fan sites, but for me it just came down to Abrams et. al making a choice; whether they wanted to continue to release films which captured the spirit of the other series and films to modest income, or to make into something that would appeal to everyone and a big box office draw, at the expense of the core characteristics of the show. They chose the latter.

What is interesting is that Abrams seemed to do the opposite with Star Wars and managed to do so well in capturing the character of the original films. And also will be interesting to see what happens with the new series, where presumably they won't have the budget to have things exploding or being vapourised every 4 seconds.

Like most Star Trek movies, I expect the Ships Only edit will be the only way to enjoy a second, third or fourth rewatch.

Pacific - excellent point that Force Awakens feels a lot more like Star Wars than either Abrams Trek film feels like Star Trek - I agree, that demonstrates that the creators of the latest films simply had/have no faith in Star Trek being relevant, at least not at the desired (financial) level. I don't think that the Secret Ingredient that makes something Trekkish is really all that elusive ... the characters simply need to exhibit some modicum of reflection at a scale larger than the immediate action of the scene and that's utterly missing from the 2009 film and Into Darkness. Those movies seem almost intentionally, self-referentially vacuous (see, e.g., interactions between Prime Spock and Abrams Spock).

Nope

Boy, that really escalated.

I uhh....yeah. Yeah it did. Anyway, back to it.

Breotan wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
But DS9 was the worst series, and the only good part of it was Dax.

In a thread about retro-fitted tokenist gay characters on Star Trek, this is the comment that crosses the line. DS9 is the best of the various TV series, and literally the only one that can be reasonably watched again today.

Then again DS9 had some real howlers in the first season. Still, with a handful of exceptions, I really liked Voyager more. So there.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion (even if it's wrong ), Personally, I disliked Voyager. With the exception of Doc (the only reason I would watch it), the characters were boring at best (Kim, Face Tattoo, Half-Klingon Girl), or downright infuriating (Janeway, Neelix)

DS9 Trek is best Trek. You are correct that it took part of a season to find it's feet, though.

Pacific wrote:Thought bits of Voyager were great (the opening sequence for one!)

The Doc was the stand-out character for me, but generally didn't think the show had as many interesting characters as DS9 (you couldn't list them all!) or the weight of the storyline overall. It also benefited from the lack of Janeway and her inconsistent moralising over that fething prime directive

Pretty much my feelings. Neat-o ship, cool high tech doctor, everything else ranged from meh to sucks.

DS9 had Quark/Odo, Sisko/that Cardassian, Worf would drop in from time to time, badass station that actually looked lived in and real. Better stories and characters for sure.

A long long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I went with a bunch of friends to an all day screening of the at the time six Star Trek films in order.
ST4 was the one that we chose to miss and have lunch. Yet having seen it in the cinema and on TV, I still enjoy it. There is something about it that gets back to the original TV series.

Let's face it, they are "middlebrow" fiction, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't try to take it too seriously.

Anyway, if you read the Philip K Dick novel, "Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said" the protagonist mentions going to see a Captain Kirk film, no.27.

We're not there yet but it can't be long!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Anyway, if you read the Philip K Dick novel, "Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said" the protagonist mentions going to see a Captain Kirk film, no.27.

We're not there yet but it can't be long!

Whenever I see “Philip K Dick” in relation to Hollywood, my immediate first thought is “What movie was loosely based on that short story?”

Is there anything of his they haven’t mined yet?

Galactic Pot-Healer.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Galactic Pot-Healer.

Starring James Franco and Seth Rogen! Coming soon.

 feeder wrote:

Pretty much my feelings. Neat-o ship, cool high tech doctor, everything else ranged from meh to sucks.

Well, all that suck is what led to the new Battlestar Galactica show being more "realistic". Moore really didn't like how the Voyager always had a way out of problems. You can add that to the positive side of the show (even if BSG had its rough patches towards the end).

Mario wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Pretty much my feelings. Neat-o ship, cool high tech doctor, everything else ranged from meh to sucks.

Well, all that suck is what led to the new Battlestar Galactica show being more "realistic". Moore really didn't like how the Voyager always had a way out of problems. You can add that to the positive side of the show (even if BSG had its rough patches towards the end).

The BSG dying in the last episode was the saddest part of that series. I say died because that ship was a character to me. She gave so much for the humans, and then they repay it by casting it into the sun.

I'm also watching Voyager now actually, 14 episodes down and X amount to go...... Personally I don't mind it.


But back to the trek! As long as Sulu isn't gay for the sake of being gay, then it's okay. It's when you get into "I'm X simply because I am X" that you tend to get issues. Like the female characters in Dr Who for example, who tend to exist only for the doctor to rescue and have nothing else going on besides him...... Speaking of which, I've always been annoyed by people who demand that the next doctor be black/a woman/ gay/ asexual/ dead. They should just pick the best actor they get and if he happens to whatever then he is.

So as long as Sulu doesn't ride in topless on a unicorn made of pink fluff whilst covered in glitter, I don't mind.

 welshhoppo wrote:
As long as Sulu isn't gay for the sake of being gay, then it's okay.

Seems to be exactly the case.

In all honesty, when it's something as huge as a worldwide film, a famous character being gay for the sake of being gay... Is that so bad? Bear with me here.
Having a character that folk (especially young folk who may need that affirmation) can see and relate to, and feel supported by, that's a valid choice to make, if it's a part of the character.

Most things in film are "for the sake of", or choices made by folks, if you chip it all down. Making one that helps people, so long as it's not disruptive, seems to me to be a good thing.

Now if any character was in the film purely because he was gay, that would be different.

I think I recently explained this in another thread or perhaps even this one but I think representationalism is bankrupt as an ideology. As marketing, well I think it is a bit crass to trade on sexual orientation - the traditional term for that is exploitation. But the pop market never rejected a thing just because it was crass.

 Manchu wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
As long as Sulu isn't gay for the sake of being gay, then it's okay.

Seems to be exactly the case.

Not really. In the far future sexuality is not a big deal, as evidenced by the cross-species fraternisation.

So for the Enterprise to apparently have no homosexual crew members in sight is a bit odd, especially when you have heterosexual crew members doing their stuff in plain view. So not having a gay character runs contrary to the kind of future which star trek was intended to portray. When viewed from that perspective, to not have an openly gay character is failing to portray that future and should be rectified.

So now it comes down to who should be gay. If they introduce a new character then, as Simon Pegg said, there is a likelihood that that character gets stuck being "the gay character" as a starting point. So in order to avoid that issue they decided to have one of the established characters be gay. They'd already set up Kirk, Spock and Uhura as straight so that leaves Bones, Scotty, Chekov (RIP) and Sulu. They chose Sulu.

 Manchu wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
As long as Sulu isn't gay for the sake of being gay, then it's okay.

Seems to be exactly the case.

I think it's kind of unfair that homosexuality has to have some deeper level (or seems to at least for quite a few people) to it be worthwhile in media ("gay for the the sake of gay" isn't enough), but heterosexuality almost never has to worry about such scrutiny.

Considering the amount of discussion it is creating one would think the film is all about how Sulu is gay, when that isn't the case at all.

@Malus: Pegg made Sulu gay vecause of the here and now, not the world of Star Trek (where Sulu is not gay).

@Milkdawg: if you think about it, unless the character is involved in a romantic relationship, her or his sexual orientation is usually not apparent (a matter of assumption)

@Ahtman: no but it is the topic of this thread

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
As long as Sulu isn't gay for the sake of being gay, then it's okay.

Seems to be exactly the case.

Not really. In the far future sexuality is not a big deal, as evidenced by the cross-species fraternisation.

So for the Enterprise to apparently have no homosexual crew members in sight is a bit odd, especially when you have heterosexual crew members doing their stuff in plain view. So not having a gay character runs contrary to the kind of future which star trek was intended to portray. When viewed from that perspective, to not have an openly gay character is failing to portray that future and should be rectified.

So now it comes down to who should be gay. If they introduce a new character then, as Simon Pegg said, there is a likelihood that that character gets stuck being "the gay character" as a starting point. So in order to avoid that issue they decided to have one of the established characters be gay. They'd already set up Kirk, Spock and Uhura as straight so that leaves Bones, Scotty, Chekov (RIP) and Sulu. They chose Sulu.

Except it isn't.

I once read an interview with Patrick Stuart, and they asked "Why haven't they found a cure for baldness yet?"

"In the 24th Century, they wouldn't care."

My point is, if you have a character who must be gay, then make him like Albus Dumbledore. He's gay, but does it affect his character? Not at all.

My overall point is, homosexuality will only truly be accepted, once being homosexual isn't something that must be announced. So I don't agree that homosexuality must have deeming meaning, I'm arguing that it must have none.

 Manchu wrote:
@Milkdawg: if you think about it, unless the character is involved in a romantic relationship, her or his sexual orientation is usually not apparent (a matter of assumption)

I would argue due to the concept of heteronormativity (man I'm coming across pretentious by using that word) and the fact that there is more straight people than gays and lesbians I think most audiences assume the character is straight even when a romance or sex isn't involved, unless the

character is an effeminate male, a butch woman, etc (homosexual cliches) then people might be willing consider the character(s) as something else other than heterosexual.

Heteronormativity as a concept is part of the argument for representationalism and therefore cannot constitute its evidentiary basis.

Let's drop the doctrinal jargon and just talk about an example: no one can make a conclusive argument that Luke Skywalker is straight (Legends sources being noncanonical). Some may assume so - but it is merely an assumption, no better than assuming he is bi or gay or whatever. This is because Luke's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his story.

Luke: I'm a Jedi, like my father before me. And gay.

Vader: Hold on, that was misleadingly phrased.

If Star Wars was rebooted and the hacks in charge said, well Luke is gay - you can be sure it is just pure Hollywood cynicism. That's what has happened with Sulu, with the added bonus of tying into and exploiting Mr. Takei's real world popularity. (Starting to see why he is not on board?)

Gay romances absolutely should be portrayed in films and on shows, in the same way heterosexual romances are - for the inhherent drama. So this is why I think if anyone is going to be officially outed by the producers, then it should be Spock and/or Kirk. As we saw in Into Darkness, the dramatic potential there is explosive.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
As long as Sulu isn't gay for the sake of being gay, then it's okay.

Seems to be exactly the case.

Not really. In the far future sexuality is not a big deal, as evidenced by the cross-species fraternisation.

So for the Enterprise to apparently have no homosexual crew members in sight is a bit odd, especially when you have heterosexual crew members doing their stuff in plain view. So not having a gay character runs contrary to the kind of future which star trek was intended to portray. When viewed from that perspective, to not have an openly gay character is failing to portray that future and should be rectified.

So now it comes down to who should be gay. If they introduce a new character then, as Simon Pegg said, there is a likelihood that that character gets stuck being "the gay character" as a starting point. So in order to avoid that issue they decided to have one of the established characters be gay. They'd already set up Kirk, Spock and Uhura as straight so that leaves Bones, Scotty, Chekov (RIP) and Sulu. They chose Sulu.

Except it isn't.

I once read an interview with Patrick Stuart, and they asked "Why haven't they found a cure for baldness yet?"

"In the 24th Century, they wouldn't care."

My point is, if you have a character who must be gay, then make him like Albus Dumbledore. He's gay, but does it affect his character? Not at all.

My overall point is, homosexuality will only truly be accepted, once being homosexual isn't something that must be announced. So I don't agree that homosexuality must have deeming meaning, I'm arguing that it must have none.

And Sulu being gay will not affect his character in any way either. What it does do is more accurately portray that utopian ideal which Star Trek has sought to portray. Again, having a setting in which nobody cares about your sexuality but also not having any openly gay or bi characters whilst parading a load of heterosexual ones is failing to portray the reality of that setting. Just because people no longer judge you about who you get down and dirty with doesn't mean that they won't take an interest or that you will not tell people that you have a new boyfriend/small fuzzy creature from alpha centauri etc. It is human nature to share our experiences with each other and to be interested in the experiences of others.

Oh, man. A romance between Spock and Kirk would be seven layers of awesome. A tension that's been building since the first series.

Spock having romantic feelings for Kirk just barely remains a subtext of Into Darkness. For example - in the beginning of the movie, Spock is about to die in a volcano and barely acknowledges that he will never see his alleged girlfriend Uhura again, for which she remains bitter throughout the film. He later explains that it's because he's Vulcan and has to control his emotions. But when he thinks Kirk has died, he flies into a fit of rage and despair and very nearly murders Khan with his bare hands. The whole movie is peppered with this stuff. Poor Uhura, the beard.

It's not like he remained the bastion of emotional stability when his mother died.

 Manchu wrote:
Spock having romantic feelings for Kirk just barely remains a subtext of Into Darkness. For example - in the beginning of the movie, Spock is about to die in a volcano and barely acknowledges that he will never see his alleged girlfriend Uhura again, for which she remains bitter throughout the film. He later explains that it's because he's Vulcan and has to control his emotions. But when he thinks Kirk has died, he flies into a fit of rage and despair and very nearly murders Khan with his bare hands. The whole movie is peppered with this stuff. Poor Uhura, the beard.

I think it is more showing that whilst Spock may have mastered logic over emotion when it comes to himself, he has yet to achieve that level when it comes to his feelings for other people.

So he is perfectly happy sacrificing himself because logic dictates it is the best course of action but not necessarily that controlled were it to come down to a question of sacrificing his friends.

 d-usa wrote:
It's not like he remained the bastion of emotional stability when his mother died.

Not really a counterargument


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think it is more showing that

Disagree. I think the text (as opposed to subtext) is that Spock's personal ideology causes interpersonal conflict, very simple. For example, he also naively reports to Star Fleet Command that the crew violated (gakky TNG/Abramsverse version of) the Prime Directive - which breaks up the team and gets Kirk busted. The subtext, or possible subtext, is Spock is having trouble understanding/accepting his feelings for Kirk. Another scene where this comes to the fore is the top brass meeting: Spock's new Captain, Abbot, interrupts Spock's intense chat with Kirk (where Kirk accuses Spock of stabbing him in the back), and Spock cold shoulders Abbot.

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not like he remained the bastion of emotional stability when his mother died.

Not really a counterargument

Well, to expand on my thought:

It's been a while since I've last seen it. But I thought the reason he didn't acknowledge it with her was because he knew he would fall apart even though he was supposed to be unemotional as a Vulcan.

It's not that he didn't respond, it's that he avoided the opportunity to respond.

That might be head-canon though, I'm not completely sure that's how it went down.

Haha well I understand that Kirk and Spock are not explicitly gay for each other in the film - just saying, there is a fairly intense subtext there, especially on Spock's side. Quinto and Pine have about 1000x more chemistry than Quinto and Saldana.

I am just against change of existing IP for PC sake.

Make new characters if you want to push some social agenda. Don't bastardize something that already exists and we love.

Unfortunately or maybe fortunately actors don't own their characters. If they had though I feel safe in saying Keaton would have saved us from the travesty that was Kilmer and Clooney Batman.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
As long as Sulu isn't gay for the sake of being gay, then it's okay.

Seems to be exactly the case.

Not really. In the far future sexuality is not a big deal, as evidenced by the cross-species fraternisation.

So for the Enterprise to apparently have no homosexual crew members in sight is a bit odd, especially when you have heterosexual crew members doing their stuff in plain view. So not having a gay character runs contrary to the kind of future which star trek was intended to portray. When viewed from that perspective, to not have an openly gay character is failing to portray that future and should be rectified.

So now it comes down to who should be gay. If they introduce a new character then, as Simon Pegg said, there is a likelihood that that character gets stuck being "the gay character" as a starting point. So in order to avoid that issue they decided to have one of the established characters be gay. They'd already set up Kirk, Spock and Uhura as straight so that leaves Bones, Scotty, Chekov (RIP) and Sulu. They chose Sulu.

Except it isn't.

I once read an interview with Patrick Stuart, and they asked "Why haven't they found a cure for baldness yet?"

"In the 24th Century, they wouldn't care."

My point is, if you have a character who must be gay, then make him like Albus Dumbledore. He's gay, but does it affect his character? Not at all.

My overall point is, homosexuality will only truly be accepted, once being homosexual isn't something that must be announced. So I don't agree that homosexuality must have deeming meaning, I'm arguing that it must have none.

And Sulu being gay will not affect his character in any way either. What it does do is more accurately portray that utopian ideal which Star Trek has sought to portray. Again, having a setting in which nobody cares about your sexuality but also not having any openly gay or bi characters whilst parading a load of heterosexual ones is failing to portray the reality of that setting. Just because people no longer judge you about who you get down and dirty with doesn't mean that they won't take an interest or that you will not tell people that you have a new boyfriend/small fuzzy creature from alpha centauri etc. It is human nature to share our experiences with each other and to be interested in the experiences of others.

If nobody cares then why the the makers of the film feel the need to bring it up before its release?

Because whilst people may not care centuries from now, people care today. People enjoy seeing characters in films that they can connect with, that they feel can represent them. In a setting such as Star Trek, there is no excuse to not feature gay or bi or trans characters whilst still featuring straight characters as it is established that in that future, people don't mind who you love.

In a setting where sexuality is no longer faced with discrimination why were there no openly gay or bi characters whilst there were many openly straight characters? How does that make narrative sense?

 SickSix wrote:
I am just against change of existing IP for PC sake.

It's an alternative timeline with more action and less of a Star Trek feeling and your problem is that a character will be gay? Where was the same outrage when Khan changed from mexican Übermensch to british Übermensch just one movie ago? Change happens all the time, retconing happens all the time. Changing one character's sexuality is no different (except people get to complain about about SJW and PC culture :/). Somehow people mange to find ways to justify Scarlett Johansson in GitS. So why not this change? Why is canon so important when the original character was white, male, or heterosexual? And why is such a tiny change that probably won't affect the movie in any significant way so destructive?

Make new characters if you want to push some social agenda. Don't bastardize something that already exists and we love.

You know that's not happening, all the old movie and the series with heterosexual Sulu are still there for you to enjoy. The new Battlestar Galactics also changed a lot from the old series and people got over it quite quickly (its overall rating on IMDB is even 1.7 points higher than the old series). If they changed nothing you would just get the old stuff with more lens flares and better looking CGI space battles. Is that really all you want from new addition to the universe? Isn't the old stuff still there to enjoy if you don't like the new additions?

By the way: What change in an existing IP would be acceptable, where do you draw the line? An alternative timeline that changes the whole series is okay but changing the sexual preferences of one character is going to far?

 SickSix wrote:
I am just against change of existing IP for PC sake.

...

What about if it is for money?

 SickSix wrote:

Make new characters if you want to push some social agenda. Don't bastardize something that already exists and we love.

This is hilarious. Star Trek has been about pushing a social and political agenda since its inception, along with a lot of sci-fi.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Because whilst people may not care centuries from now, people care today. People enjoy seeing characters in films that they can connect with, that they feel can represent them. In a setting such as Star Trek, there is no excuse to not feature gay or bi or trans characters whilst still featuring straight characters as it is established that in that future, people don't mind who you love.

In a setting where sexuality is no longer faced with discrimination why were there no openly gay or bi characters whilst there were many openly straight characters? How does that make narrative sense?

Maybe they are just all straight because it is a coincidence?


Basically, I view this new Sulu as having come out. There was a big broohaha over it, as there always is when celebrities come out, and it has affected the way everyone will see him.

I go back to my earlier point that people need to stop getting all excited when people come out, because it only increases the idea that people who come out are different. I once met a guy who, as soon as I met him, said "Hello, my name is X, and I am gay." What was my glorious reply?
"If the most interesting thing about you is your sexuality, you must be a very boring person." And I never talked to him again. Maybe he was insulted, not that it bothers me at all.

I say this because you have to take into account films when they are released because they are often important to the world.

Look back at the first series. Sure, none of the characters are openly gay, but what is special about the senior staff? It is their nationality, Star Trek was made in the Cold War, and yet you have an American, Japanese and a Russian all best friends and respected officers. Then you have a Black Woman, an alien, and an alcoholic Scotsman. The basic idea of the original trek is that they are idealistic, and what was more idealistic than all the nations of the world, currently at war or only just stopped being at war, being friends and equals. People would have remembered the Second World War and the war against the Japanese, and they were living a war against the Russians.

For the record I don't mind Sulu being Gay, it doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is the way that his being gay was announced. It could have easily been kept quiet until the film was released and then have a small scene like this.

Kick: "So Sulu, got any plans for shore leave?"
Sulu: "Yes. Me and my husband are going to Planet X for a week."
Kirk: "Awesome. Pass on my regards."

Easy as pie.

 feeder wrote:


In a thread about retro-fitted tokenist gay characters on Star Trek, this is the comment that crosses the line. DS9 is the best of the various TV series, and literally the only one that can be reasonably watched again today.

Setting aside that DS9 is my favorite and easily the best Star Trek series, I agree. TOS has not aged well. TNG has aged a fair bit better, but its early seasons suffer. DS9 has aged really well technically, and a lot of its content actually feels more relevant now than when it originally aired in the late 80s and 90s.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This is hilarious. Star Trek has been about pushing a social and political agenda since its inception, along with a lot of sci-fi.

The first two movies didn''t doing anything to push agendas.

 LordofHats wrote:
Setting aside that DS9 is my favorite

Groovy

 LordofHats wrote:
and easily the best Star Trek series

But that is just wrong senpai. I like DS9 but I'd still take TOS over it any day of the week since it is easily the best series even if it is old. Some didn't age well, but that is true of the dulcet tones of DS9 as well. Of the Berman era it is certainly the best.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Because whilst people may not care centuries from now, people care today. People enjoy seeing characters in films that they can connect with, that they feel can represent them. In a setting such as Star Trek, there is no excuse to not feature gay or bi or trans characters whilst still featuring straight characters as it is established that in that future, people don't mind who you love.

In a setting where sexuality is no longer faced with discrimination why were there no openly gay or bi characters whilst there were many openly straight characters? How does that make narrative sense?

Maybe they are just all straight because it is a coincidence?


Basically, I view this new Sulu as having come out. There was a big broohaha over it, as there always is when celebrities come out, and it has affected the way everyone will see him.

I go back to my earlier point that people need to stop getting all excited when people come out, because it only increases the idea that people who come out are different. I once met a guy who, as soon as I met him, said "Hello, my name is X, and I am gay." What was my glorious reply?
"If the most interesting thing about you is your sexuality, you must be a very boring person." And I never talked to him again. Maybe he was insulted, not that it bothers me at all.

I say this because you have to take into account films when they are released because they are often important to the world.

Look back at the first series. Sure, none of the characters are openly gay, but what is special about the senior staff? It is their nationality, Star Trek was made in the Cold War, and yet you have an American, Japanese and a Russian all best friends and respected officers. Then you have a Black Woman, an alien, and an alcoholic Scotsman. The basic idea of the original trek is that they are idealistic, and what was more idealistic than all the nations of the world, currently at war or only just stopped being at war, being friends and equals. People would have remembered the Second World War and the war against the Japanese, and they were living a war against the Russians.

For the record I don't mind Sulu being Gay, it doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is the way that his being gay was announced. It could have easily been kept quiet until the film was released and then have a small scene like this.

Kick: "So Sulu, got any plans for shore leave?"
Sulu: "Yes. Me and my husband are going to Planet X for a week."
Kirk: "Awesome. Pass on my regards."

Easy as pie.

That's exactly how I think "it" should happen. With exactly as much fanfare as him being straight. Make it a point to demonstrate that the future Federation doesn't care about something as trivial as this.

It's like how in The Flash on CW the police chief is gay, with a husband. But when it is mentioned a couple times in passing, it's just part of the casual conversation. Noone gives it any more care than if he's talking jokingly about his wife.

 Breotan wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This is hilarious. Star Trek has been about pushing a social and political agenda since its inception, along with a lot of sci-fi.

The first two movies didn''t doing anything to push agendas.

The first one doubled down on the interracial sexual tension of two original characters, and the second examines the justification of terrorism and the militarization in response to a threat of terrorism that the militarization created in the first place.

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This is hilarious. Star Trek has been about pushing a social and political agenda since its inception, along with a lot of sci-fi.

The first two movies didn''t doing anything to push agendas.

The first one doubled down on the interracial sexual tension of two original characters, and the second examines the justification of terrorism and the militarization in response to a threat of terrorism that the militarization created in the first place.

The first one may have push a boundary had it been done back in the 60s. By 2009 there were already many instances of interracial romances in media. Also, the sexual tension was played at in the original serios with Uhura trying to gain Spock's affections but never quite managing to, so this isn't entirely new territory here. As for the second... which boundary exactly are you describing? The franchise has always held the military in disdain. In TNG, DS9, and even Voyager there have been plots where a military or political agent went off the reservation and began military action to "protect the Federation" or something similar with our main cast having to go in and stop it. Sorry, no boundaries pushed here.

It's my view that snapping their fingers and making Sulu gay is just a cynical ploy to be edgy and stir up some controversy to drive ticket sales.

 Breotan wrote:


It's my view that snapping their fingers and making Sulu gay is just a cynical ploy to be edgy and stir up some controversy to drive ticket sales.

Why is there always this argument that any change that can be described as progressive must be a ploy or agenda? Do you also complain about the heterosexual agenda, the white agenda, or the male agenda when characters get whitewashed?

They had no reason to mention his sexuality in the the first two movies of the reboot so they didn't do it. Maybe they found a way to introduce it this time and just wanted to do it. All the resistance to the idea is about "not shoving it down our throats" and not being crass about it. It wasn't done until now because it wasn't relevant until now, maybe the characters gets a slightly bigger role in this movie. They might just introduce it with a picture in his cabin or somebody mentions that his husband left a message for him. They had the little Sulu/fencing joke in the first movie and they might introduce it with some ambiguity here too to play with the idea of the other characters assuming stuff about him.

Would the change be more acceptable if they had done it in the first movie despite having no need to mention it just to get people acclimated to the idea of a gay character?

Mario wrote:
They had no reason to mention his sexuality in the the first two movies of the reboot so they didn't do it.

He wasn't gay in the first two movies.

People dislike making Sulu gay now mostly because they are retconning a character to make a statement.

 Breotan wrote:

Mario wrote:
They had no reason to mention his sexuality in the the first two movies of the reboot so they didn't do it.

He wasn't gay in the first two movies.

People dislike making Sulu gay now mostly because they are retconning a character to make a statement.

Assumption. Nowhere was Sulu's sexuality mentioned or even suggested in the previous two films. It was equally valid to assume he was gay given the information about his character that we were given.

Just because he was straight in the original series doesn't mean he is straight as default in an alternate universe.

 Breotan wrote:

Mario wrote:
They had no reason to mention his sexuality in the the first two movies of the reboot so they didn't do it.

He wasn't gay in the first two movies.

What makes you think he wasn't gay?

He was barely in the first two movies at all. The sum total of our knowledge of JJ Trek Sulu is that he knows fencing, and maybe he wants to be a captain himself someday. Literally. That's about as far as his characterization ever gets. The recent films have been overwhelmingly focused on Spock and Kirk, almost to the complete exclusion of the rest of the crew. Scotty seems to exist solely to solve plot problems, the sole female character does little more than be a love interest (Progress marches on!), Sulu knows fencing, and Chekov gets to be the goofy awkward guy two/three times a film. Oh. And Bones is around. Looking shockingly older than the rest of the cast as per the usual. Point is, unless your name is Kirk or Spock, you're barely in the JJ films at all.

At least we know they are both into interpspecies heterosexuality and that Bones is divorced.

 LordofHats wrote:
He was barely in the first two movies at all. The sum total of our knowledge of JJ Trek Sulu is that he knows fencing, and maybe he wants to be a captain himself someday. Literally. That's about as far as his characterization ever gets. The recent films have been overwhelmingly focused on Spock and Kirk, almost to the complete exclusion of the rest of the crew. Scotty seems to exist solely to solve plot problems, the sole female character does little more than be a love interest (Progress marches on!), Sulu knows fencing, and Chekov gets to be the goofy awkward guy two/three times a film. Oh. And Bones is around. Looking shockingly older than the rest of the cast as per the usual. Point is, unless your name is Kirk or Spock, you're barely in the JJ films at all.

Speaking of Chekov, I wonder what they're going to do with the character since Anton Yelchin died. Do you think the role will be recast for the next film or maybe the character will be replaced?

Chekov was killed in a freak shuttle accident where is comedic relief backfired, and he forgot to engage the zero point quantum safety matrix causing a freak energy cascade in his shuttle's primary sub-space manifold.

Or in layman's terms, he forgot to engage the safety break and his shuttle ran him over during shore leave.

Too soon?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Speaking of Chekov, I wonder what they're going to do with the character since Anton Yelchin died. Do you think the role will be recast for the next film or maybe the character will be replaced?

I think they recently mentioned that that they won't recast him. So if the character doesn't doesn't die in this movie they will explain him away for the next. But that came from a writer (I think). In the end it depends on what the stakeholders want.

 LordofHats wrote:
He was barely in the first two movies at all. The sum total of our knowledge of JJ Trek Sulu is that he knows fencing, and maybe he wants to be a captain himself someday. Literally. That's about as far as his characterization ever gets. The recent films have been overwhelmingly focused on Spock and Kirk, almost to the complete exclusion of the rest of the crew. Scotty seems to exist solely to solve plot problems, the sole female character does little more than be a love interest (Progress marches on!), Sulu knows fencing, and Chekov gets to be the goofy awkward guy two/three times a film. Oh. And Bones is around. Looking shockingly older than the rest of the cast as per the usual. Point is, unless your name is Kirk or Spock, you're barely in the JJ films at all.

If he was gay then, they wouldn't have waited 3 movies for a big reveal- we'd have seen it or had 'word of god'. Bones being Kirk's father would be a reveal worth waiting for, the one Asian guy also being the one guy attracted to dudes isn't.

Remember though, in the STU they've cured the common cold, and last movie they cured death. Meanwhile alien radiation causes anything from transporter failure to mood swings.
There could be a sickbay scene where after being exposed to pink tachyons, Sulu reports same gender attraction and a love of theatre.

Or a transporter accident where his sex drive is swapped with a female crewmember. That actually sounds like a TNG plot.

 =Angel= wrote:
If he was gay then, they wouldn't have waited 3 movies for a big reveal- we'd have seen it or had 'word of god'.

The only people who have that kind of luxury in the creative process are people who've spent years on a project before it ever gets a green light. In reality, most of it is made as you go.

There was 0 point in even discussing the sexuality of a character whose total time on screen is probably equivalent to a long music video with a goofy non-music scene shoe horned into the middle. Why would they waste their time, let alone ours, on that issue? Like many characters in many fictions, Sulu was not conceived in the mental womb fully formed and written in stone. He's fluid, and he'll change as time goes on and as the people writing the fiction develop new ideas. That's the creative process.

 Manchu wrote:
Heteronormativity as a concept is part of the argument for representationalism and therefore cannot constitute its evidentiary basis.

I'm going to be honest, I don't know what this sentence means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
My overall point is, homosexuality will only truly be accepted, once being homosexual isn't something that must be announced. So I don't agree that homosexuality must have deeming meaning, I'm arguing that it must have none.

How is one supposed to accept homosexuality if you don't allow its existence to be acknowledged in anyway?

 LordofHats wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
If he was gay then, they wouldn't have waited 3 movies for a big reveal- we'd have seen it or had 'word of god'.

The only people who have that kind of luxury in the creative process are people who've spent years on a project before it ever gets a green light. In reality, most of it is made as you go.

There was 0 point in even discussing the sexuality of a character whose total time on screen is probably equivalent to a long music video with a goofy non-music scene shoe horned into the middle. Why would they waste their time, let alone ours, on that issue? Like many characters in many fictions, Sulu was not conceived in the mental womb fully formed and written in stone. He's fluid, and he'll change as time goes on and as the people writing the fiction develop new ideas. That's the creative process.

We are discussing a character who has been around since 1966. For simplicity's sake, we could reasonably assume that anything we are not directly shown to be untrue about this new portrayal of the character is still true to the original version.
They would 'waste our time' to let us know how the character differs from the original incarnation.

It's fine to take a character in a different direction, let him evolve. Deciding 'he's gay now' is the opposite of this. It's not developing out of anything we've been shown about the character since 1966. Showing him falling in love with man and discovering that he had same sex attraction (arguably the entire subtext of Into Darkness) or even hinting at a close relationship with a man would be character development.
Sulu leaping out of a space closet and kissing a man is not' fluid change as time goes on'.

This may be the last Star Trek movie- there's a whole ST series planned, riding on the success of the movie. Sloppy characterization now can hurt the franchise financially for years to come.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Heteronormativity as a concept is part of the argument for representationalism and therefore cannot constitute its evidentiary basis.

I'm going to be honest, I don't know what this sentence means.

Its buzzwords for 'people assume you are normal until they are shown otherwise' or 'pattern recognition'.
You don't assume someone's a billionaire until you see evidence to that effect because billionaires are rare. Most of us aren't rich, most of us like the opposite sex.
It's a poor argument for needing to see more billionaires in film.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Heteronormativity as a concept is part of the argument for representationalism and therefore cannot constitute its evidentiary basis.

I'm going to be honest, I don't know what this sentence means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
My overall point is, homosexuality will only truly be accepted, once being homosexual isn't something that must be announced. So I don't agree that homosexuality must have deeming meaning, I'm arguing that it must have none.

How is one supposed to accept homosexuality if you don't allow its existence to be acknowledged in anyway?

Probably the same way one accepts heterosexuality despite the fact people don't generally acknowledge the fact they are one in regular conversation.

Isn't any showing/talking of sexual/romantic relationships an announcement on some level, regardless if it's heterosexual or homosexual?

 Cheesecat wrote:
Isn't any showing/talking of sexual/romantic relationships an announcement on some level, regardless if it's heterosexual or homosexual?

It is, but it shouldn't be a talking point. Just look at the media the last time a celebrity came out as homosexual or announced they were going to be undergoing a sex change, they are all massive talking points that people go on about for a long time. When was the last time people went on about "teenage boy realises he likes girls?"

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Heteronormativity as a concept is part of the argument for representationalism and therefore cannot constitute its evidentiary basis.

I'm going to be honest, I don't know what this sentence means.

Briefly, "heteronormativity" is a piece of jargon invented to support representationalist arguments. A religious equivalent would be like saying, transubstantiation is evidence for the truth of Catholicism.

 =Angel= wrote:
For simplicity's sake, we could reasonably assume that anything we are not directly shown to be untrue about this new portrayal of the character is still true to the original version.

"Simplicity's sake" would be assuming nothing about anything until it is shown. Sulu's sexuality has never been a topic of significance in any incarnation of Star Trek. There is no "true to the original version" here, and even if it was this is an alternate reality created for the whole point of not being tied down to the original version.

This is why I've increasingly come to hate fandom. No matter what some corner of it will think up some bizarre logic to justify being pointlessly angry. Case and point;

This may be the last Star Trek movie- there's a whole ST series planned, riding on the success of the movie. Sloppy characterization now can hurt the franchise financially for years to come.

If the success of this film hinges on what team a nonexistent human being is swinging for, then the film is not the problem, (especially not this film which has been mired in rumors of production troubles since it was announced).

Mr. Takei obviously disagrees about there being no "true to the original version" argument, since he is, ahem, making that argument both as someone who brought the character to life and as a close associate of Mr. Roddenberry (so in effect, as a co-creator and on behalf of another, now-deceased co-creator).

 Manchu wrote:
Mr. Takei obviously disagrees about there being no "true to the original version" argument

I hereby dub it the "No True Sulu" fallacy

Takei has no authority to define the bounds of the character, and he certainly doesn't have the authority to declare what a man whose been dead for 25 years would be thinking right now. No one but God knows what Rodenberry would be thinking right now. I think Takei has the grounds to complain that they made his character gay because he's gay. "Lets have a gay character in Star Trek. We're overdue. How about Sulu? Takei is gay. Okay." That's insulting to his person imo, diminishes the impact of the first gay ST character, and I'd argue the exact kind of tokenism the creators say they want to avoid.

It's not however a limitation on what writers now can do with the character, and it doesn't support half the half baked nonsense and doom crying that people are making about the decision.

This .. authority ... you speak of ... it seems like an invention of your argument. Surely it is obvious that Mssrs Roddenberry and Takei (and yes I am willing to take Mr. Takei's word on this) understand what they intended and endeavored to portray. I don't think you want to go down the "death of the artist" route here; it's just disproportionate. As you yourself are willing to argue, stamping >GAY< on the character now is rife with problems. I think some of those problems clearly arise from the fact that the characters' creators conceived of and executed on a straight character, and not merely a character of unspecified sexual orientation.

What is so unique about this example is, the counterargument here simply cannot be WELL U R HOMOPHOBE because not only is the party objecting a homosexual man but he also has a notable reputation for gay rights activism.

 Manchu wrote:
the counterargument here simply cannot be WELL U R HOMOPHOBE because not only is the party objecting a homosexual man but he also has a notable reputation for gay rights activism.

Maybe he's REALLY x4 confused.

I know you're joking but there are extremists out there who would not hesitate to accuse someone like George Takei of homophobia. Doing so would of course only expose their own insanity, however.

 Manchu wrote:
I know you're joking but there are extremists out there who would not hesitate to accuse someone like George Takei of homophobia. Doing so would of course only expose their own insanity, however.

That's pretty dumb. I can't think of a more outspoken Pro-Gay activist than George Takei.

Ideological zealotry is a rabbit hole, for sure.

 Manchu wrote:
This .. authority ... you speak of ... it seems like an invention of your argument

I'm not the person appealing to Takei's opinion, so lets not be disingenuous.

Surely it is obvious that Mssrs Roddenberry and Takei (and yes I am willing to take Mr. Takei's word on this) understand what they intended and endeavored to portray.

What was intended and what was done are not the same thing. Even if they were, Takei can only speak to what was intended over 30 years ago. He can't know what Roddenberry would think or intend now. Even if he did, it wouldn't matter. The new timeline can be used to explain virtually anything. Just as Voltron Legendary Defender/Elementary/Starship Troopers can gender flip a character, writers of a new ST film can write a character to have whatever orientation they want, and Roddenberry and Takei would have no authority to tell anyone what the true Sulu is because there is no true Sulu.

problems clearly arise from the fact that the characters' creators conceived of and executed on a straight character

Objection; Facts not in evidence. Sulu's sexuality was never addressed in TOS, and we can only hazard to guess he had sex with a woman at some point because he has a daughter who appears in Star Trek: Generations. And none of those things really apply to alternate timeline Sulu, who's been on screen for maybe a total of 15 minutes across two feature length films.

I think "stamping ga"y on a character of undefined sexual orientation is fine. Rick Riordan went 6 years between The Titan's Curse and The House of Hades before revealing Nico Di Angelo was gay, and this was after 3 books suggesting that the character had a crush on a girl (who conveniently was standing next to a guy every time it came up ). Even if the character was previously established straight I can't say I care much if their sexuality was never a significant part of their character. People have had straight relationships and then gay relationships in the real world after all. Anita Van Buren was on Law and Order from 1993 to 2010, and the show didn't reveal she was a lesbian until 2007 after revealing she'd divorced her husband and father of her children Donald, and broken off another relationship with forever off-screen fiancee Frank (in previous episodes). Characterization marches on apparently, unless the fans have convinced themselves of something that was never established and then get butthurt about it.

I think it becomes problematic when you stamp the label onto the one character of the cast portrayed by a gay man, and say you're doing it because the man who portrayed the character is gay. EDIT: And I really only find that problematic because it seems insulting to Takei as a person, not because I wrote a fan fic in 1988 where Sulu married my female author avatar and we lived happily ever after. This position has nothing to do with any of the butt hurt arguments about how they "can't make Sulu gay" or "Sulu was straight" which have no basis in anything but the assumption that someone is straight until shown otherwise. And you know what they say about assumptions.

The hypothetical "authority" implied by your initial argument is non-existent, unless you just want to beat the soulless corporate drum. Contrast this - on both counts - to the creators' testimony about their creation. Similarly, what Mr. Roddenberry hypothetically "would think now" is irrelevant (and not only because he is in fact dead) to what Mssrs Roddenberry and Takei actually made then. Those "facts" are in evidence; whether you accept them or not is down to arbitrary standards of personal fandom or, I suppose, your opinion of Mr. Takei's trustworthiness and judgment.

You haven't managed an example parallel to the one at issue so I suggest sticking to the question of Sulu. To clarify, my issue is not with X character being rewritten as gay - see above where I suggested it would be better to make either or both Spock and Kirk gay for the Abramsverse. I agree with you that making Sulu gay as an alleged tribute to Takei is bad and dumb. But I also see a more basic problem: the assumption that any of the characters ought to be stamped >GAY< to begin with, as opposed to ... you know, just being gay. And this is why I propose a gay Spock - there is something to do with a gay Spock or Kirk: you have this relationship between them that is already incredibly important to Star Trek and if one or both of them was gay, you're going to have so many new facets to that drama. Whereas Sulu is, comparatively, a background character whose relationships have never been and are not likely to now become central to the franchise. With Spock and Kirk, you would be guaranteed to have gay characters; with Sulu, you get a guy who wears a tag that says GAY. By your standards, Sulu will likely be just as [whatever sexual orientation] now as he always has been.

Making Kirk and/or Spock gay - especially gay for each other - that would be mind blowing to the people who oppose gay characters because they don't like gayness. That would really rock the boat. That would be super risky because there would, interestingly enough, actually be something at risk. So you know, feth that, just make Sulu gay - it even has a built in marketing plan because people like Mr. Takei and how gay he is, even if they tend not to like gayness generally. What a brave, brave stand. Is it really any wonder that a gay rights activist like Mr. Takei has reservations? Of course, I'm guessing he would also not like my idea of making Kirk and Spock gay, unless it would piss off Mr. Shatner.

 Manchu wrote:
The hypothetical "authority" implied by your initial argument is non-existent,

If we agree, then you can stop appealing to it. Takei's trustworthiness and judgement has nothing to do with it. His thoughts on the character's creation all those years ago mean nothing to the continuing existence of the character now.

see above where I suggested it would be better to make either or both Spock and Kirk gay for the Abramsverse.

Honestly it probably would if only because Kirk's lady's man persona is such a monolithic joke (Futurama made an entire character off it alone) at this point that twisting it into "Kirk bangs green space dude" would breath new life into the old haha

But I also see a more basic problem: the assumption that any of the characters ought to be stamped >GAY< to begin with, as opposed to ... you know, just being gay. And this is why I propose a gay Spock

What is the difference between "stamped gay" and "just being gay"? I mean let's be clear here; we're talking about a brief clip in the movie where it is briefly mentioned that Sulu "misses his husband and daughter." It's a literal blink and you'll miss it moment. It has no real baring on the film, or anything really. I don't have any issue with that. Sulu has a life beyond being gay. He's on a star ship in the middle of a 5 year mission to deep space. He jumps out of it sometimes to sword fight with aliens, because laser pistols just aren't manly enough. He keeps the captain's seat warm when he's away, maybe makes an analogy explaining technojargon in simple terms. Maybe he'll be bold and make a joke about seamen (*crosses fingers*).

It's good that he's not putting on a rainbow tunic and making weird obnoxious hand gestures and talking in a high pitched voice with exaggerated vowels. Instead it's just a simple tender moment, and that's that because being gay is not the sum total of his existence just like a real person.

That's why I find it a little insulting that the announcement came in the form of a "we're making Sulu gay as a love letter to George Takei's life and work." I see no need to reference to Takei's sexual orientation when making a character no longer played by him gay, or to use Takei as some kind of reach around method of justifying the reveal, or whatever they were thinking when they made that announcement. If the character is being written gay, then just write him gay. Make it a single piece of the character rather than their whole being, and just give us a glimpse at it. That's how you really send a love letter to Takei's life and work, not by making some big announcement about it and saying "X is gay now because Y is gay." At the very least, the makers of the film seemed to get the former part of that right. It's the later part I have an issue with.

Mr. Takei's recollection is only relevant to the character he had an instrumental role in creating. To the extent that his experience is irrelevant, we're talking about some other character.

What I mean by stamped >GAY< is really simple: it's when a character is declared gay but them being gay has nothing to do with anything within the story; i.e., they are gay for (usually marketing) reasons external to plot, setting, story, or characterization. There are characters, not coinidentally many of them are main characters, that cannot simply get the stamp treatment precisely because them being gay would have to be a matter of at least characterization and plot. Spock qualifies; Sulu does not.

To your other points, I found Sulu's role in Into Darkness disappointing. Like Uhura, he gets a shot at doing something he should be good at, and wants to be good at, and he basically isn't up to it. But TBF Abrams gave Kirk the same treatment.

 Manchu wrote:
Mr. Takei's recollection is only relevant to the character he had an instrumental role in creating.

George Takei is not, and never will be or was, the arbiter of all things Sulu.

What I mean by stamped >GAY< is really simple: it's when a character is declared gay but them being gay has nothing to do with anything within the story; i.e., they are gay for (usually marketing) reasons external to plot, setting, story, or characterization.

This conception would effectively ban any character from being gay unless being such is integral to their role in the show. That pigeon holes all gay characters into either being token characters who are only around so someone gay is around, or main characters. Worse, it further reduces any character not cleanly fitting into the two roles as a mere marketing stunt. So yeah. We'll just have to disagree on that.

To your other points, I found Sulu's role in Into Darkness disappointing.

I saw it as; "Hey remember that Captain Sulu TV show you all wanted back in 84, but you got TNG instead? Well let us slap you in the face with that disappointment real quick with this not so clever reference to Captain Sulu."

I used the word relevant, you respond with something to do with the arbiter of all things. Come back down from those dizzying internet hyperbole heights. The character is in a huge sense the creation of the actor who says the writer wrote him straight and that he himself played him straight.

Your pigeon holing argument is wrong. I already addressed it ITT.

 Manchu wrote:
The character is in a huge sense the creation of the actor who says the writer wrote him straight and that he himself played him straight.

Maybe if we were talking about the Original Series, and it was some year between 1966 and 1971, that would matter. George Takei's opinion on Sulu is no more important than anyone else's where it concerns the character played by John Cho in a series of films depicting an alternate timeline written by some other guys.

Your pigeon holing argument is wrong. I already addressed it ITT.

We'll just have to disagree. On both counts.

I believe I already said as much, regarding this different character. (Although your dates are off.)

 Manchu wrote:
I believe I already said as much, regarding this different character. (Although your dates are off.)

I include the Animated Series which I thought ran from 70 to 71, but apparently it was 73 to 74

It's kind of funny, because in that series Sulu uses magic to conjure a beautiful woman which would make the original timeline version of the character straight (EDIT: or at least Bi ) if Roddenberry hadn't decanonized TAS (not that that stopped future ST writers from referencing stuff from TAS though EDIT: especially in DS9, which included hosts of references to TAS alongside its many call backs to TOS). Even funnier, the beautiful woman Sulu conjured turned out to be a man! If you're confused at this point, it's okay because TAS had horrible writing which is probably why it was tossed out the window in the first place XD

I recall ... falling asleep while trying to watch them.

Yeah I tend to think most of ST followed some rudimentary form of "the even numbered movies are good" resulting in about half of ST episodes being good and half being bad. TAS had none imo. The series tried to at the same time appeal to young children and fans of TOS and it just didn't work (animation wasn't good either, even accounting for the times). Whole show had series mood/maturity whiplash.

The reasoning that [minority/gay/whatever] characters have to have a story driven reason for being a particular [minority/gay/whatever] just seems silly to me. In my opinion it just reinforces the notion that every character is automatically a white heterosexual unless the story specifically requires otherwise.

This comes back to Simon Pegg a bit, but I love his movie "Run, Fatboy, Run". His ex in the movie is black and he has a biracial son in that movie, and no attempt is made to give any reason or justification for her being black in the movie. He just fell in love with a woman and had a kid with her, that's it. Her race has nothing to do with why he fell in love with her, it has nothing to do with why the other guy falls in love with her, it never has any effect on the son, it has zero impact on the story and the part could be a white woman with zero impact on the movie whatsoever. In the same way I trust him with Zulu being gay just because without having to pidgeonhole him into some some weird reason for being gay.

Just like Kirk bangs green aliens for no great reason other than "Kirk bangs green space aliens" and Spock has a relationship with a black human other than "Kirk likes Uhura". Picking a particular character as a tribute to the original actor when deciding who gets the token gay character role is one discussion. But you don't have to have a particular reason or include a particular stereotypical behavior or insert a gay storyline to justify having a gay character. Did the fact that Uhura is black ever come up as being particular significant in the reboot? Does she say or do ethnic things? Is she a token character?

I'd argue a character can't be token, even if they are the only member of their identity in the cast, if their character exists beyond that particular trait. Take Captain Holt from Brooklyn 99. He's the only gay character in the main cast, but his character doesn't revolve around being gay. Nor does it consistently fall back on gay stereotypes to characterize him I.E. not Token. EDIT: Oddly, it's Holt's husband Kevin who generally falls back on gay stereotypes more often than not.

Ironically, the character of Token in South Park stopped being Token a number of years ago, as his character expanded being being "the black kid." Though the show still calls him up when it wants to talk about anything concerning race relations, he's been fleshed out significantly in a number of episodes over the years

Star Trek manages to avoid this on ethnic lines, though I'd argue Uhura danced close to tokenism a number of times when it came to being a woman.

I think it's like, black people don't really exist in the Star Trek future - more specifically, being black as a cultural or identity marker doesn't seem to exist. The Federation has this monoculture that encompasses everyone and its closest 21st century analog is white suburban American. But anyway, to continue with d-usa's example, if some screenwriter were to say, oh "white character X is married to a black woman" and this had basically no impact on film, didn't figure at all into anything, I would be rolling my eyes because it's just that writer doing marketing, exploiting real issues to peddle his goods. That seems to be what's happening with Sulu here.

So any writing and casting that isn't "normal" is automatic pandering unless there is an explicit reason for the character to be different?

When you go out into public, do you tell everyone you see your sexual orientation? I hope not. That would be awkward and creepy. Now, because we have posted on this forum for years and years, I know that you are married to a woman and, so far as I know, all the evidence available to me points to you being straight. Now, the point of our association (digital friends 4-ever!) is nothing to do with your sexual orientation. It's just something that organically came to my knowledge. The same sort of thing should apply to writing screenplays, comics, novels, etc, and that includes developing properties except that unlike real people the details of fictional characters are the product of their creators' intentions. So it is perfectly acceptable to question their motives. IMO if Simon Pegg (or anyone else) was serious about portraying the homosexual orientation of a character, he would write a gay character who's romantic relationship, and I don't mean the fact that it is a gay relationship, just the relationship itself (as in, not necessarily a story about being gay), is meaningful to the plot and/or story. Here's a rule of thumb: if you have characters whose romantic relationships are irrelevant then their sexual orientation should also be irrelevant.

 Manchu wrote:
When you go out into public, do you tell everyone you see your sexual orientation?

No. I'm fething Kronk. Men want to be me. Chicks want to be with me. Children wish I was their dad.

It gets old.

Like being a lotto winner, but for good looks.

Besides, Star Trek isn't very accurate of the future, anyway. In the future, Caucasians, Asians, African, and Latinos will all blend into one race of 7' tall, dark complected, super smart people.

 kronk wrote:


Besides, Star Trek isn't very accurate of the future, anyway. In the future, Caucasians, Asians, African, and Latinos will all blend into one race of 7' tall, dark complected, super smart people.

So, Battletech?

.., Well maybe not the smart part

So did the reboot manage to tell the story adequately enough to justify having a white heterosexual captain? Or was that just a casting to satisfy marketing goals?

Are you seriously asking me why the actor playing Captain Kirk in the reboot is white?

If so, that is the dumbest thing I have read on the internet all week (so far).

 Manchu wrote:
Are you seriously asking me why the actor playing Captain Kirk in the reboot is white?

If so, that is the dumbest thing I have read on the internet all week (so far).

Pick any of the white Heterosexual Star Trek characters from TOS, TNG, DSN, Voyager, Enterprise. Did the story telling and writing do enough to justify their requirement to be white heterosexual characters?

l

You are spoiling so hard for a fight that you aren't even bothering to understand (or possibly even read) what I have posted.

Here's a rule of thumb: if you have characters whose romantic relationships are irrelevant then their sexual orientation should also be irrelevant.

So is Kirk's, Uhura's, Spock's, Bone's, Picards, and Sisco's sexual orientation relevant to their roles in the series?

Apply my rule of thumb: are their romantic relationships ever relevant to the plots/stories?

 Manchu wrote:
Apply my rule of thumb: are their romantic relationships ever relevant to the plots/stories?

Well, are they?

And if so, are their sexual orientations ever relevant to the plots/stories? Or would anything have changed from a plot/story perspective if Kirk banged a green guy instead of a green girl?

37D of 9 was very relevant...

Phasers set to smoking hot!

 d-usa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Are you seriously asking me why the actor playing Captain Kirk in the reboot is white?

If so, that is the dumbest thing I have read on the internet all week (so far).

Pick any of the white Heterosexual Star Trek characters from TOS, TNG, DSN, Voyager, Enterprise. Did the story telling and writing do enough to justify their requirement to be white heterosexual characters?

l

I for one would like to talk about the TNG writers and the Early Gray Tea (Hot) Agenda. How dare they shove their beverage of choice down our throats vicariously through Professor Xavier.

And don't even get me started on the Oboe agenda in Voyager! Where does Garret Wang get off?

 d-usa wrote:
Well, are they?

Have you ... ever seen any Star Trek? Like, you can't answer this question for yourself? I mean, you only have to ask yourself: how did you know these characters were straight? Did a Hollywood producer tell you right before the release of a major motion picture? Or was it something you saw in an episode?

 d-usa wrote:
if Kirk banged a green guy

And have you bothered to read my posts ITT? This is getting pretty tiresome.

 Manchu wrote:
And this is why I propose a gay Spock - there is something to do with a gay Spock or Kirk: you have this relationship between them that is already incredibly important to Star Trek and if one or both of them was gay, you're going to have so many new facets to that drama. Whereas Sulu is, comparatively, a background character whose relationships have never been and are not likely to now become central to the franchise. With Spock and Kirk, you would be guaranteed to have gay characters; with Sulu, you get a guy who wears a tag that says GAY.

 LordofHats wrote:
Where does Garret Wang get off?

These days? At conventions mostly, where he usually only has one half of a table.

I'm even willing to be adventurous and talk about Psych's pineapple agenda. Damn subliminal advertising.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
These days? At conventions mostly, where he usually only has one half of a table.

Well Voyager was horrible. When the performance a given actor gives in Star Trek Online is better than the television series they first appeared in, something was wrong

 LordofHats wrote:
Well Voyager was horrible.

Add that to the book of things we agree about.

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, are they?

Have you ... ever seen any Star Trek? Like, you can't answer this question for yourself? I mean, you only have to ask yourself: how did you know these characters were straight? Did a Hollywood producer tell you right before the release of a major motion picture? Or was it something you saw in an episode?

Why is Kirk white and straight? Why is Uhura black and straight? Why is Picard white and straight? Why is Sisco black and straight?

 Manchu wrote:
But anyway, to continue with d-usa's example, if some screenwriter were to say, oh "white character X is married to a black woman" and this had basically no impact on film, didn't figure at all into anything, I would be rolling my eyes because it's just that writer doing marketing, exploiting real issues to peddle his goods.

I have watched the shows. Their race and sexual orientation had basically no impact to the story and didn't figure into anything. Did you roll your eyes at their marketing and exploitation of the race or sexual orientation of those characters? Or did you feel that the stories adequately justified the need to have these characters be a particular race or sexual orientation?

That's the problem I have with this argument. Everything has to be justified, except when it doesn't.

 Manchu wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well Voyager was horrible.

Add that to the book of things we agree about.

Personally, I kind of like Voyager......

*Quickly warps to the Delta Quadrant*

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well Voyager was horrible.

Add that to the book of things we agree about.

Personally, I kind of like Voyager......

*Quickly warps to the Delta Quadrant*

I will stand up and say that Robert Picardo gave one us one of the greatest Star Trek Characters, and one of the best performances of any Star Trek actor (in three different series and a movie no less)!

Even a horrible show has it's likable spots

 d-usa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, are they?

Have you ... ever seen any Star Trek? Like, you can't answer this question for yourself? I mean, you only have to ask yourself: how did you know these characters were straight? Did a Hollywood producer tell you right before the release of a major motion picture? Or was it something you saw in an episode?

Why is Kirk white and straight? Why is Uhura black and straight? Why is Picard white and straight? Why is Sisco black and straight?

 Manchu wrote:
But anyway, to continue with d-usa's example, if some screenwriter were to say, oh "white character X is married to a black woman" and this had basically no impact on film, didn't figure at all into anything, I would be rolling my eyes because it's just that writer doing marketing, exploiting real issues to peddle his goods.

I have watched the shows. Their race and sexual orientation had basically no impact to the story and didn't figure into anything. Did you roll your eyes at their marketing and exploitation of the race or sexual orientation of those characters? Or did you feel that the stories adequately justified the need to have these characters be a particular race or sexual orientation?

That's the problem I have with this argument. Everything has to be justified, except when it doesn't.

Dude, the problem is with long running characters being changed. It's why everyone was up in arms when Thor was changed to a woman. Had Sulu been black and gay at the start of the show, no one would care if he was black or gay now. It'd be the same problem as Rocky making Rocky Balboa a lesbian woman from Brooklyn. And yet, notice how Apollo is awesome, because it advances the story and introduces new exciting characters, rather than change existing ones.

So yeah, my opinion has kind of changed on it all... Just by someone mentioning Sulu is "missing his husband and daughter" as the (possible?) line.

I'm basically like, "yep, sure" to it now. We know from Generations that Sulu has a daughter called Demora, my main issue was that sort of feeling that it was changed a character. - Which is why I quipped early on about, "if he was bi instead of gay." - Because that plays into the whole time travel stuff. - Left turn (Original timeline), Sulu settles down with a lady and has a daughter called Demora who helms the Enterprise B. Right turn, Sulu settles down with someone else.

But yeah, if there is still a Demora Sulu in the universe and she's his daughter. Then, yeah, I'm good with it.

Thinking about this more I realized my first post was too much of an angry reaction.

I watch plenty of shows with gay characters/themes.

Again, my issue is with changing an existing character of an established lore/IP just to be inclusive or PC.

Sulu had a daughter and family. Pretty clear he wasn't gay. And this timeline is only 'alternate' once Spock and that romulan ship time travel; the characters are still the same people.

If Sulu is now gay, then this is a truly divergent universe and the first movie makes no sense. It was actually totally unnecessary if JJ is just going to rerwrite characters 'because...'

And if he is going to do that then why even use established characters at all? Why not a completely new set of characters that you can write however you want and no one can argue/complain about trashing established characters?

So now the more I think about this I am realising how lazy and bad JJ is handling the ST IP.

Too scared to strike out an introduce all new characters he has to fall back on known and loved characters but is going to rewrite them how he sees fit. What a douche...

 LordofHats wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well Voyager was horrible.

Add that to the book of things we agree about.

Personally, I kind of like Voyager......

*Quickly warps to the Delta Quadrant*

I will stand up and say that Robert Picardo gave one us one of the greatest Star Trek Characters, and one of the best performances of any Star Trek actor (in three different series and a movie no less)!

Even a horrible show has it's likable spots

Agreed, he is definitely my favourite doctor.

I've assumed Kirk and Spock are lovers in the JJ reboot. It's fairly obvious from their dialog and interactions.

 SickSix wrote:

Sulu had a daughter and family. Pretty clear he wasn't gay. And this timeline is only 'alternate' once Spock and that romulan ship time travel; the characters are still the same people.

Well, that would depend how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go.

We know that Sulu had a daughter and a "family". We were never introduced to a wife, or even a female love interest of any kind for that matter. So there really was never any confirmation of him being straight or gay, we just applied our preconceived notion of what it means to be a family and have a daughter. There is really nothing in the old timeline and original IP that precludes him from having a male partner and a daughter.

If "they never really established him as straight or gay" is not an acceptable viewpoint, then you could always go full Kinsey Scale and try to figure out where the original/alternate Sulu character sits. Was he always somewhere in the middle? Did the alternate timeline simply mean that he did not go on Mission X where he met Eve and instead ended up on Mission Y where he met Steve?

But honestly, they don't have to get that complicated. They can just simply build on the fact that Sulu has always been, he's always had a daughter, and they never established the gender of the other parent. Heck, I don't even think they ever established that there was another partner at all. He could have simply adopted her all along.

 d-usa wrote:
That's the problem I have with this argument. Everything has to be justified, except when it doesn't.

TBH the problem you are having is with understanding the argument. Here's another example, from earlier in the thread:

 Manchu wrote:
Let's drop the doctrinal jargon and just talk about an example: no one can make a conclusive argument that Luke Skywalker is straight (Legends sources being noncanonical). Some may assume so - but it is merely an assumption, no better than assuming he is bi or gay or whatever. This is because Luke's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his story.

Luke: I'm a Jedi, like my father before me. And gay.

Vader: Hold on, that was misleadingly phrased.

If Star Wars was rebooted and the hacks in charge said, well Luke is gay - you can be sure it is just pure Hollywood cynicism. That's what has happened with Sulu, with the added bonus of tying into and exploiting Mr. Takei's real world popularity. (Starting to see why he is not on board?)

Gay romances absolutely should be portrayed in films and on shows, in the same way heterosexual romances are - for the inhherent drama. So this is why I think if anyone is going to be officially outed by the producers, then it should be Spock and/or Kirk. As we saw in Into Darkness, the dramatic potential there is explosive.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Agreed, he is definitely my favourite doctor.

Fine, second favourite doctor.

That's better.

 d-usa wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

Sulu had a daughter and family. Pretty clear he wasn't gay. And this timeline is only 'alternate' once Spock and that romulan ship time travel; the characters are still the same people.

Well, that would depend how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go.

We know that Sulu had a daughter and a "family". We were never introduced to a wife, or even a female love interest of any kind for that matter. So there really was never any confirmation of him being straight or gay, we just applied our preconceived notion of what it means to be a family and have a daughter. There is really nothing in the old timeline and original IP that precludes him from having a male partner and a daughter.

If "they never really established him as straight or gay" is not an acceptable viewpoint, then you could always go full Kinsey Scale and try to figure out where the original/alternate Sulu character sits. Was he always somewhere in the middle? Did the alternate timeline simply mean that he did not go on Mission X where he met Eve and instead ended up on Mission Y where he met Steve?

But honestly, they don't have to get that complicated. They can just simply build on the fact that Sulu has always been, he's always had a daughter, and they never established the gender of the other parent. Heck, I don't even think they ever established that there was another partner at all. He could have simply adopted her all along.

To be fair gay people do have children from time to time.

 Cheesecat wrote:

To be fair gay people do have children from time to time.

Indeed... There was even a stink about it in various media forms because recently a Christian "rock star" came out. He is married and has children.

I would suppose the issue then would be: do we still have those problems in the 2200s or 2300s or whenever ST takes place?

It would be more than suspension of disbelief could stand to feature homophobia within Federation society. I could see it being a problem among Kkingons, I guess.

I know several gay couples, of both genders, that have kids. Being gay doesn't mean no children.

You guys are projecting modern norms on a movie made in the 80s.

Anyways, why are we so quick to assume human homosexuality would still be around in the 23rd century?

What if before then human homosexuality was found to be a genetic defect? What if it didn't exist in the ST time line? We have no evidence to say that it does as far as I am aware.

Let's be objective here and explore all possibilities. Maybe the ST universe isn't all puppies and kittens.


*edited because typing on a 'smart' phone sucks.

 SickSix wrote:
What if before then human homosexuality was found to be a genetic defect?

Erm? What?

What if it didn't exist in the ST time line? We have no evidence to say that it does as far as I am aware.

Yes, and there's no evidence to suggest that black people existed in the first few years of the Marvel universe, but it doesn't mean that they didn't. Lack of evidence for something is not the same as evidence against it.

 Manchu wrote:
It would be more than suspension of disbelief could stand to feature homophobia within Federation society. I could see it being a problem among Kkingons, I guess.

I guess my question could also be answered that, perhaps while there's basically no homophobia in the Federation, there will still be outliers who personally struggle with the identity? I do find even that a stretch because, IMO, the reason why many people have difficulty with their orientation is because of the lack of acceptance and whatnot.

 Manchu wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Agreed, he is definitely my favourite doctor.

3rd favorite:

 d-usa wrote:
So did the reboot manage to tell the story adequately enough to justify having a white heterosexual captain? Or was that just a casting to satisfy marketing goals?

His heterosexuality doesn't come up. However, the tension with Spock is nice and taut.

In the film, Sulu's husband and daughter give the bad buy's planned attack on a civilian target some personal stakes.

I think the best way I have seen lately of portaying a gay couple without pandering is the two scientists on Independence Day: Resurgence. It felt like an old married couple, rather than "look! He's gay!".

Hell, at the end, I felt more emotional for the two of them than for Hemsworth and his fiancee.

 Manchu wrote:
It would be more than suspension of disbelief could stand to feature homophobia within Federation society. I could see it being a problem among Kkingons, I guess.

Now he's having a go at the Klingons !

I'd wager the Empire is more tolerant than you'd think in this regard, Klingons are big on honor and duty, so even Commander Khox'zon'dix would likely sire a few offspring out of a sense loyalty to the continuity of the Empire, even if he didn't personally want to (and I'd imagine a female Klingon might feel obliged to carry a child or two for the same reasons), and as long as he did that and killed enough enemys I doubt other Klingons would much care.

Klingons have rules for literally everything. If there's something in life, they've found a way to ritualize it. So, it would depend on if the Klingon followed the appropriate traditions

 LordofHats wrote:
Klingons have rules for literally everything. If there's something in life, they've found a way to ritualize it. So, it would depend on if the Klingon followed the appropriate traditions

There are always people wiling to break the mold:

Doesn't the male have to fight a female to get mating rights?

I could imagine someone who failed to win a female ending up having relationships with men...... Some relationships are better than none.

Or heck, maybe the Klingons go all Golden Band, who knows? I don't think anyone would have the guts to ask.

So for those that have seen it now, how was the gayness revealed and incorporated into the movie?

 d-usa wrote:
So for those that have seen it now, how was the gayness revealed and incorporated into the movie?

Sulu gets off the Enterprise for shore leave at Yorktown, he sees his husband and daughter, they hug and then walk away and then cut.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So for those that have seen it now, how was the gayness revealed and incorporated into the movie?

Sulu gets off the Enterprise for shore leave at Yorktown, he sees his husband and daughter, they hug and then walk away and then cut.

Sounds about as "in your face" as I expected, good deal.

 d-usa wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So for those that have seen it now, how was the gayness revealed and incorporated into the movie?

Sulu gets off the Enterprise for shore leave at Yorktown, he sees his husband and daughter, they hug and then walk away and then cut.

Sounds about as "in your face" as I expected, good deal.

It's a total non-issue. I've done gayer stuff by accident than anything Sulu did in Star Trek Beyond.


And for the record, I don't mean that in a negative way.

 LordofHats wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
For simplicity's sake, we could reasonably assume that anything we are not directly shown to be untrue about this new portrayal of the character is still true to the original version.

"Simplicity's sake" would be assuming nothing about anything until it is shown. Sulu's sexuality has never been a topic of significance in any incarnation of Star Trek. There is no "true to the original version" here, and even if it was this is an alternate reality created for the whole point of not being tied down to the original version.

I disagree. It's Star Trek, its safe to assume they'll be in space, on a ship at some point. We would be up in arms if Bones was cheerful and Kirk despondant.

 LordofHats wrote:

This is why I've increasingly come to hate fandom. No matter what some corner of it will think up some bizarre logic to justify being pointlessly angry. Case and point;

This may be the last Star Trek movie- there's a whole ST series planned, riding on the success of the movie. Sloppy characterization now can hurt the franchise financially for years to come.

If the success of this film hinges on what team a nonexistent human being is swinging for, then the film is not the problem, (especially not this film which has been mired in rumors of production troubles since it was announced).

How it's handled. Moreover change for change sake.

Having seen the movie last night, I thought Sulu's relationship with was handled tastefully, which has allayed my concerns that ST would get Ghostbuster'd/ Force Awaken'd.
I maintain that it added nothing to the movie, given that could have been replaced with any given woman without affecting the plot of the movie, such as it was.

Is there a thread up to discuss the movie itself? I'm still trying to make sense of it. The Shaky-Cam didn't help and I suspect we sat a bit too close.

 =Angel= wrote:
We would be up in arms if Bones was cheerful and Kirk despondant.

You might. Maybe don't make assumptions for other people, especially since we've already seen Bones cheerful and Kirk despondent. We've seen that last on on numerous occasions actually. Kirk's spent a lot of his time in the films (played by both actors) despondent.

How it's handled. Moreover change for change sake.

Something isn't change because it defies presumptions. Revealed would be the correct word, and most things are revealed for the sheer sake of revealing them (especially when it challenges the audiences presumptions!). That's pretty much a short phrase guide to characterization.

Is there a thread up to discuss the movie itself?

About four threads down and straight on till morning!

The issue with Sulu being gay was never about it being "in your face" so ...

 =Angel= wrote:
We would be up in arms if Bones was cheerful and Kirk despondant.

That happened in Star Trek Beyond.

 Manchu wrote:
The issue with Sulu being gay was never about it being "in your face" so ...

 =Angel= wrote:
We would be up in arms if Bones was cheerful and Kirk despondant.

That happened in Star Trek Beyond.

That was less of case of it being their entire characterisation and more of Kirk feeling down due to backstory, and his friend attempting to cheer him up.

 Manchu wrote:
The issue with Sulu being gay was never about it being "in your face" so ...

That was one issue- the potential for anvilicious moralizing. didn't happen.
The other issue was Long running characters and Change- which stands.

So to conclude- not thrilled they did it, happy with how they did it.

 Goliath wrote:
Kirk feeling down due to backstory

What backstory? I mean, I get your actual point but the movie set up Kirk as being the opposite of Kirk and never explained why. The name and command are the only things this character shares with James T. Kirk.

 Manchu wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Kirk feeling down due to backstory

What backstory? I mean, I get your actual point but the movie set up Kirk as being the opposite of Kirk and never explained why. The name and command are the only things this character shares with James T. Kirk.

Which is hardly surprising considering the huge differences in their respective childhoods.

That misses the point.

Growing up with a father vs growing up without a father would explain the difference in character and behavior, unless you had a different point when complaining about a lack of explanation.

It doesn't explain why this charactered does not have drive, curiousity, and thirst for adventure and discovery all of the sudden.

 Manchu wrote:
It doesn't explain why this charactered does not have drive, curiousity, and thirst for adventure and discovery all of the sudden.

What in the TOS explained that his character had drive, curiosity, and thirst for adventure and discovery? I gotta tell you I'm starting to think TOS had a drive, curiosity, and thirst for adventure and discovery agenda. They just stamped it on the characters with no explanation for why!

 Manchu wrote:
It doesn't explain why this charactered does not have drive, curiousity, and thirst for adventure and discovery all of the sudden.

So it's not that they didn't explain it, it's just that you don't like the explanation.

In all seriousness, it is the same shallow game as declaring Sulu gay.

The character of Kirk was established by TOS. The popularity of that character, among other things, is why these movies exist. If the character in these movies is different in even the most fundamental and broad terms then any pretense to being even a reboot dissolves, and all we have is a cash grab - especially if, as in this case, the script fsils to account for the divergent character development.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:So it's not that they didn't explain it, it's just that you don't like the explanation.

Seriously lolwut.

Even reboot Kirk was heretofore desparate to go have space adventures

 Manchu wrote:
In all seriousness, it is the same shallow game as declaring Sulu gay.

The character of Kirk was established by TOS. The popularity of that character, among other things, is why these movies exist. If the character in these movies is different in even the most fundamental and broad terms then any pretense to being even a reboot dissolves, and all we have is a cash grab - especially if, as in this case, the script fsils to account for the divergent character development.

Yes, and the entire point of his character arc through this film is that prior to the end of the film he was effectively trying to live up to his father, rather than living as his own person.

He starts off the film not really knowing what to do, as he was unsure why he was doing it. At the end of the film he quite clearly states that he wants to carry on as captain, because otherwise he wouldn't get to explore.

No he wasn't. He had to be goaded to go to the Academy, and even when he was there he treated the whole thing like a joke. The entire second movie was about how he didn't take his command, or Star Fleet and its mission, seriously and just did what he wanted. From the get go the Kelvin Timeline Kirk was markedly distinct from the original, especially in the department of lacking the original's overwhelming sense of duty and respect for the ideals of the Federation.

 Manchu wrote:
In all seriousness, it is the same shallow game as declaring Sulu gay.

The character of Kirk was established by TOS. The popularity of that character, among other things, is why these movies exist. If the character in these movies is different in even the most fundamental and broad terms then any pretense to being even a reboot dissolves, and all we have is a cash grab - especially if, as in this case, the script fsils to account for the divergent character development.

I wonder if something happened in one of those movies that changed things for all of these characters, that changed the events that shaped them, the adventures that they will face, or how they will address them.

If so, then maybe they should have one of the characters specifically mention that in one of the three movies.

d-usa wrote:So it's not that they didn't explain it, it's just that you don't like the explanation.

Seriously lolwut.

Even reboot Kirk was heretofore desparate to go have space adventures

Maybe reboot Kirk only joined Starfleet on a dare. Maybe after joining Starfleet, reboot Kirk was happy about the initial 5 year mission and was very excited about it. Maybe at some point during that 5 year mission, reboot Kirk starts to doubt his path in Starfleet and wonders it the episodic nature (curious word, episodic, weird) of their mission makes any difference and if it is worth the stress and toll on the crew and himself. I wonder if some of the doubts and change in behavior is because reboot Kirk has a birthday coming up, which is also the day that his father died. I also wonder if some of the doubts and change in behavior is because after this birthday, reboot Kirk will be older than his father ever got to be. I wonder if reboot Kirk is having some crisis about his purpose because he spend his Starfleet career living up to the legacy of George Kirk, and now he has to figure out what it means to be James Kirk.

Of course all that is just conjecture, if that is the explanation that they wanted to use they probably should have had a few of the characters mention some of this. But they didn't, so we will never know.

Respect/affection for Starfleet is not the same as having an adventurous spirit. Abrams Kirk exaggerated the devil may care attitude of Prime Kirk regarding the former but always thoroughly exhibited the latter, which is what he suddenly lacks at the beginning of Beyond. And by the way he is looking for a Star Fleet desk job in Beyond; the issue is definitely not about retiring from Star Fleet.

 Manchu wrote:
Respect/affection for Starfleet is not the same as having an adventurous spirit. Abrams Kirk exaggerated the devil may care attitude of Prime Kirk regarding the former but always thoroughly exhibited the latter, which is what he suddenly lacks at the beginning of Beyond. And by the way he is looking for a Star Fleet desk job in Beyond; the issue is definitely not about retiring from Star Fleet.

As I said; his issue at the start of the film is that he's struggling to work out what *he* wants. That's the entire point of his chat with Bones. He's spent the past few years working as George Kirk's Son rather than as James T. Kirk, and now that he's outlived his father he doesn't know what to do with his life.

His arc through the film is of him finding that adventurous spirit again, capped by him turning down the Vice-Admiral position in favour of the Captaincy of the Enterprise so that he can carry on exploring.

But he already spent two other films figuring things out, both times centered on command ofthe Enterprise.

 Manchu wrote:
But he already spent two other films figuring things out, both times centered on command ofthe Enterprise.

No, he spent two films engaging in revenge for attacks upon people he cared about.

He never really had time to figure himself out in those films, what his goal would be as he was either trying to save the world, kill the person who killed his father, kill the person who killed his captain or save the world again.

That doesn't leave a lot of time for self reflection and actually figuring out who you are and what you actually want to accomplish in life.

No, the previous two Star Trek reboot films weren't revenge movies. The villains of both movies were so weakly written precisely because the focus is on the protagonists, principally Kirk and Spock, and especially Kirk getting or getting back command of the Enterprise.

So he didn't want to go after Nero for killing his father or Khan for killing Pike?

Not principally no, and certainly not ultimately as regarding Khan, with whom Kirk teams up to stop RoboCop. I think Kirk does initially want to avenge Pike but the plot unfolds in a different direction entirely, simultaneously to Kirk learning who Khan is. Of course Kirk's initial motivation (that is, at the beginning of his arc) in the first movie is summarized brilliantly by the (so far) best line in the whole series: I dare you to do better. By the end of that film, Kirk had transformed from a wild child that needed a push into adulthood, courtesy Bruce Greenwood, to a guy who had found his calling. That's why it was so impactful in Into Darkness when he lost command of the Enterprise. Spock inadvertently, kinda sorta, robbed Kirk of the thing that defined him - definitely not, as in Beyond, something that he's wishy washy about. You can tell how weak this beat is because it had to be justified by a scene showing something completely fething dumb to justify it - namely, the opening sequence where the absurdly melodramatic aliens attack Kirk for comedic relief (except there has been no drama to warrant relief at that point).