Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?