crabra comander
Master Member
In the eternal words of George Takei: "OH MY"
Star Trek Beyond
- Thread starter Bryancd
- Start date
Didnt read the whole thing. Does it say who his husband is? A great twist would be to find out at the end its kirk. They just cant show affection for each other duty.
I'm still not a fan of Chris Pine as Kirk. Pretty much ruins it for me. Everyone else does a fair job and Karl Urban is excellent.....
Its just that Pine guy......
I'm still not a fan of Chris Pine as Kirk. Pretty much ruins it for me. Everyone else does a fair job and Karl Urban is excellent.....
Its just that Pine guy......
matty matt
Sr Member
I think it's a good move.
B
Bluto
Guest
Why.?...........
matty matt
Sr Member
Why not?
JiminSTLouis
Sr Member
I hope at least if they say his child's name its Demora, introduced in ST: Generations.
Huh. This just got awkward....
George Takei Reacts to Gay Sulu News: "I Think It's Really Unfortunate"
George Takei Reacts to Gay Sulu News: "I Think It's Really Unfortunate"
Whaaaaat???
I just downloaded all the seasons of TNG... and now it's just on Canadian Netflix!?!?
NOTHING is on Canadian Netflix.
crabra comander
Master Member
I would also prefer to see the glamazon scene...I'm just saying
Ha ha... that's unfortunate...
of all the times they've shoe-horned something unnecessary to update a flick, this is one I actually liked.
Takei is such a huge part of Sulu, and I admire him so much, I thought this was a great way to connect the man to Jon Cho's portrayal (who I ALSO like a lot! ROLDY!)
And then I read that... hahah...
Ah well.
I hope he turns around on it. For once I feel like it was done with the best of intentions... not a money grab... not pandering...
KrangPrime
Master Member
I'm shocked takei actually agrees with me...
he's become so gung ho as king of the activists as of late, i thought he'd be all for it.
what's odd is that they didn't respect his decision. if it's such a little scene, they had 4 months to change or edit what sounds like one or two scenes.
peggs emails almost come off as apologetic, 'we respect your activism, but my hands are tied here, mate'.
maybe this was a command from hi up to include more diversity, just like other franchises? and he couldn't really make the change despite being the head writer.
Kind of like how david wise was forced to write out shredder and krang in the original tmnt series, and include dregg and carter, thought up by a CBS executive?
it sounds like an un creative ceo decision to me.
he's become so gung ho as king of the activists as of late, i thought he'd be all for it.
what's odd is that they didn't respect his decision. if it's such a little scene, they had 4 months to change or edit what sounds like one or two scenes.
peggs emails almost come off as apologetic, 'we respect your activism, but my hands are tied here, mate'.
maybe this was a command from hi up to include more diversity, just like other franchises? and he couldn't really make the change despite being the head writer.
Kind of like how david wise was forced to write out shredder and krang in the original tmnt series, and include dregg and carter, thought up by a CBS executive?
it sounds like an un creative ceo decision to me.
I liked the idea as well, but I'd listen to Takei. Make a new gay character. Hell, cast Sam Rockwell and name the character "Guy" and I might even pay to go see this travesty of a film.
I think Original Star Trek is the ONLY show I would ever say this about, but in a weird way, those actors own those characters. Not legally, but in a weird figurative way. Maybe it's because that was when this whole nerd culture thing started and they had to endure it's extremely awkward childhood as it grew from "Guys who watch late night sci fi for unknown psychological reasons" to an entire huge culture in it's own right (including forums like this).
Whatever the reason, he IS Sulu and always will be for me. That's my canon.
I think Original Star Trek is the ONLY show I would ever say this about, but in a weird way, those actors own those characters. Not legally, but in a weird figurative way. Maybe it's because that was when this whole nerd culture thing started and they had to endure it's extremely awkward childhood as it grew from "Guys who watch late night sci fi for unknown psychological reasons" to an entire huge culture in it's own right (including forums like this).
Whatever the reason, he IS Sulu and always will be for me. That's my canon.
astroboy
Master Member
I'm really torn about this. The thing is, Takei was in the closet for so long because he couldn't come out. I really think the studio is making the right choice here.
As much as I love George.(if I could shake any trek celebs hand, it would be his) I've always felt that he plays it a little safe for an advocate. But he deserves this.
And the other part of it is that paramount has been pissing all over Roddenberry since they rebooted trek. As token as this is, I somehow feel that Roddenberry would approve.
I realize that this is hot off the press but takei should be thrilled that the fan base is supportive
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
As much as I love George.(if I could shake any trek celebs hand, it would be his) I've always felt that he plays it a little safe for an advocate. But he deserves this.
And the other part of it is that paramount has been pissing all over Roddenberry since they rebooted trek. As token as this is, I somehow feel that Roddenberry would approve.
I realize that this is hot off the press but takei should be thrilled that the fan base is supportive
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
KrangPrime
Master Member
heh, i just find it funny how people are so torn on what to support these days. do you support the 'progressiveness' of the studio, or takei, an activist in every sense of the word?
kind of a kobiashi maru in this case. especially if the studio is being sincere and not just throwing it out there to drum up controversy.
the fact that Takei isn't on the side of this shows to me he gets it. original wins out over pandering any day. but lots of people will turn it into a bigger issue than it is, hence, studio wins and keeps on doing it regardless of what people think.
I personally love the sam rockwell idea.
kind of a kobiashi maru in this case. especially if the studio is being sincere and not just throwing it out there to drum up controversy.
the fact that Takei isn't on the side of this shows to me he gets it. original wins out over pandering any day. but lots of people will turn it into a bigger issue than it is, hence, studio wins and keeps on doing it regardless of what people think.
I personally love the sam rockwell idea.
The decision-makers don't give a frak about George. If they did, they would've honored his wishes to leave Sulu straight. Which he was. Remember when he hit on Lt. Uhura hard in "Mirror, Mirror"?! He even sexually groped her for a few seconds, whilst she distracted him from his instrument panel!
No, they're using, exploiting, George as an excuse to promote their own agenda. They did it "for George". Bull crap! It is *their* ideology behind this. Ideology trumps everything.
This exploitation of George Takei, a Star Trek legend, sickens me.
The Wook
No, they're using, exploiting, George as an excuse to promote their own agenda. They did it "for George". Bull crap! It is *their* ideology behind this. Ideology trumps everything.
This exploitation of George Takei, a Star Trek legend, sickens me.
The Wook
JD
Master Member
I don't think it's pandering and I don't think it's a token. It's unfortunate George Takei doesn't necessarily agree - despite using the Rodenberry characters, this isn't old Trek by any stretch of the imagination. While we haven't seen the movie yet, it sounds like this isn't something they're flaunting our parading around, but more like 'blink and you'll miss it." Was Kirk's dalliance in the first JJ Trek pandering? No, it was part of his character... Why is Sulu being held to a different standard now that he might be gay? Sulu never had a partner of any sort prior to this (yes, he had/has a daughter... which really doesn't mean anything about his sexuality).
It's unfortunate that Cho (or whomever) opted to out JJ-Sulu this way, rather than just have it happen in the movie where it might've just happened naturally. I think Takei -and others - is missing the relevance that making a lead, bridge character gay is much less pandering than making a new character just for the sake of making a new character. Had this been Scotty or some other (main) character that he wasn't tied to, I'd bet he'd be much more supportive.
It's unfortunate that Cho (or whomever) opted to out JJ-Sulu this way, rather than just have it happen in the movie where it might've just happened naturally. I think Takei -and others - is missing the relevance that making a lead, bridge character gay is much less pandering than making a new character just for the sake of making a new character. Had this been Scotty or some other (main) character that he wasn't tied to, I'd bet he'd be much more supportive.
They already made Kirk incompetent, so if they are going to screw with another character they should screw with a minor one. Put Chris Hemsworth in a wig and a skirt to play a transgender Yeoman Rand.
Sent from my Motorola StarTAC
KrangPrime
Master Member
i just find it funny that so many people are looking to appear progressive, they are agreeing with the studio and practically bashing takei in some places. if politely.
even the local radio station said with a false sense of sincerity that they thought it was 'cool' and 'about time ' and that 'takei was wrong'
why does no one see that the studio doesn't think an ORIGINAL gay character would be accepted, and would not be popular enough to stand on his or her own as a CHARACTER? they have to take a pre existing character (like making the FIRST green lantern before hal jordan gay) and change his back story to appear progressive?
it's alot bolder to go new than to retcon old.
and pisses off fans of the old character you changed. hip jimmy olsen *cough*. jennyolsen *cough*... i say that out loud?
even the local radio station said with a false sense of sincerity that they thought it was 'cool' and 'about time ' and that 'takei was wrong'
why does no one see that the studio doesn't think an ORIGINAL gay character would be accepted, and would not be popular enough to stand on his or her own as a CHARACTER? they have to take a pre existing character (like making the FIRST green lantern before hal jordan gay) and change his back story to appear progressive?
it's alot bolder to go new than to retcon old.
and pisses off fans of the old character you changed. hip jimmy olsen *cough*. jennyolsen *cough*... i say that out loud?
JD
Master Member
:lol
Isn't creating a new, original character just for the sake of being gay pandering? This isn't old Trek, this doesn't change that at all - this is retcon Star Trek, where everything has changed as it is. I wonder how much of JJ Trek Roddenberry would not have approved of... heck, most likely the entire reboot/retcon idea.
In this utopian Trek world - every single main character is heterosexual. In the 60s, Trek wasn't afraid to push boundaries - Russian, Japanese - or interracial kisses. It's time Trek took the next step - it's unfortunate it's taken this long. That's why I feel Takei is wrong - I get his stance that this is not what Roddenberry envisioned or developed... but, times have changed and Star Trek has changed. I seriously wonder if they would've made Scotty or Chekov gay if he would've had any issue with that.
Simon Pegg summed it up pretty well: “Justin Lin, Doug Jung and I loved the idea of it being someone we already knew because the audience have a pre-existing opinion of that character as a human being, unaffected by any prejudice. Their sexual orientation is just one of many personal aspects, not the defining characteristic. Also, the audience would infer that there has been an LGBT presence in the Trek Universe from the beginning (at least in the Kelvin timeline), that a gay hero isn’t something new or strange. It’s also important to note that at no point do we suggest that our Sulu was ever closeted, why would he need to be? It’s just hasn’t come up before.”
More Pegg: "I don’t believe Gene Roddenberry’s decision to make the prime timeline’s Enterprise crew straight was an artistic one, more a necessity of the time."
You can bitch about tokenism or pandering all you want. But, this is the kind of thing Trek has always been about. The idea that there is so much whining about it - makes me feel that it was needed that much more.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...orge-takei-criticism?CMP=twt_a-film_b-gdnfilm
Isn't creating a new, original character just for the sake of being gay pandering? This isn't old Trek, this doesn't change that at all - this is retcon Star Trek, where everything has changed as it is. I wonder how much of JJ Trek Roddenberry would not have approved of... heck, most likely the entire reboot/retcon idea.
In this utopian Trek world - every single main character is heterosexual. In the 60s, Trek wasn't afraid to push boundaries - Russian, Japanese - or interracial kisses. It's time Trek took the next step - it's unfortunate it's taken this long. That's why I feel Takei is wrong - I get his stance that this is not what Roddenberry envisioned or developed... but, times have changed and Star Trek has changed. I seriously wonder if they would've made Scotty or Chekov gay if he would've had any issue with that.
Simon Pegg summed it up pretty well: “Justin Lin, Doug Jung and I loved the idea of it being someone we already knew because the audience have a pre-existing opinion of that character as a human being, unaffected by any prejudice. Their sexual orientation is just one of many personal aspects, not the defining characteristic. Also, the audience would infer that there has been an LGBT presence in the Trek Universe from the beginning (at least in the Kelvin timeline), that a gay hero isn’t something new or strange. It’s also important to note that at no point do we suggest that our Sulu was ever closeted, why would he need to be? It’s just hasn’t come up before.”
More Pegg: "I don’t believe Gene Roddenberry’s decision to make the prime timeline’s Enterprise crew straight was an artistic one, more a necessity of the time."
You can bitch about tokenism or pandering all you want. But, this is the kind of thing Trek has always been about. The idea that there is so much whining about it - makes me feel that it was needed that much more.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...orge-takei-criticism?CMP=twt_a-film_b-gdnfilm
Last edited:
Similar threads
