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.

 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).