JD
Master Member
Mark these words of an open-minded individual.
Star Trek Beyond
- Thread starter Bryancd
- Start date
tgreco
Sr Member
If I didn't enjoy the last movie, why would I go see the next one? Regardless of what franchise?
How does that saying go... fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice shame on me.
I thought Attack of the Clones sucked... why go see Revenge of the Sith?
I thought Into Darkness sucked... why go see Beyond?
There's so many good movies, and TV shows out there now, why waste time watching what you know you won't enjoy? Do you finish books you can't stand halfway through?
To boil it all down...
- Nero coming through and destroying the Kelvin wasn't the fission point. The Kelvin already existed as a radical departure to Trek ships of that era. The Enterprise from Enterprise is on Admiral Marcus' credenza in Into Darkness, and that ship is an anachronism and continuity-breaker from design to name. This timeline split off no later than Our Heroes meddling with First Contact in 2063. Different ship design philosophy for Starfleet than the Prime timeline, big jump on tech progression, Chekov's parents had a kid a good decade earlier than in the Prime timeline, etc.
- I'm fine with Kelvin-Sulu being gay, mainly as they're not going to focus on it all in the story. It'll be an offhand thing in passing, as it should be. The best way to effect change is to just do it and not point it out -- as they should have done with the Ghostbusters reboot. Hell, I'd be fine with Sulu in both timelines being the Trek equivalent of Captain Jack Harkness -- he's attracted to whoever he's attracted to, and gender matters as little to him as skin or hair color does to many/most of us in this thread. But this Sulu being gay doesn't break continuity -- it's a frikkin' alternate timeline! We're only recently even beginning to explore epigenetics. God only knows how many factors can influence where on the sexuality spectrum we end up. I like what Simon Pegg said: given the philosophy of IDIC and all these parallel universes, all those in which we exist at all probably have every possibility of gender, gender-identity, sexual orientation, and sexual interest represented. I'd love to break some of the more conservative types' minds by explaining to them that in another reality, they're gay.
- All that said, I do not want his child to be Demora. There's parallel, and then there's parallel.
--Jonah
- Nero coming through and destroying the Kelvin wasn't the fission point. The Kelvin already existed as a radical departure to Trek ships of that era. The Enterprise from Enterprise is on Admiral Marcus' credenza in Into Darkness, and that ship is an anachronism and continuity-breaker from design to name. This timeline split off no later than Our Heroes meddling with First Contact in 2063. Different ship design philosophy for Starfleet than the Prime timeline, big jump on tech progression, Chekov's parents had a kid a good decade earlier than in the Prime timeline, etc.
- I'm fine with Kelvin-Sulu being gay, mainly as they're not going to focus on it all in the story. It'll be an offhand thing in passing, as it should be. The best way to effect change is to just do it and not point it out -- as they should have done with the Ghostbusters reboot. Hell, I'd be fine with Sulu in both timelines being the Trek equivalent of Captain Jack Harkness -- he's attracted to whoever he's attracted to, and gender matters as little to him as skin or hair color does to many/most of us in this thread. But this Sulu being gay doesn't break continuity -- it's a frikkin' alternate timeline! We're only recently even beginning to explore epigenetics. God only knows how many factors can influence where on the sexuality spectrum we end up. I like what Simon Pegg said: given the philosophy of IDIC and all these parallel universes, all those in which we exist at all probably have every possibility of gender, gender-identity, sexual orientation, and sexual interest represented. I'd love to break some of the more conservative types' minds by explaining to them that in another reality, they're gay.
- All that said, I do not want his child to be Demora. There's parallel, and then there's parallel.
--Jonah
KrangPrime
Master Member
probably not caring since he was never brought up ;o)
I don't think any of the older cast has really said much about the new movies, other than that they don't really care for them.
They didn't listen to george here, why would they speak up in the past other than to voice dissatisfaction like the rest of us, if they where just going to be ignored? ;0(
KrangPrime
Master Member
But that's a shame as you clearly are a franchise fan, give it a chance, I'll send you the $10 for a ticket.
I wouldn't want your $10's to count towards box office gross ;o).
how does the old saying go?
Fool me twice, . Fool me three times... ;o)
@NeilT it's called the Replica PROP Forum. I joined in 2002 to make lightsabers, not argue about Hikaru Sulu's sexuality.
Do you go over thousands of pictures to find the one right detail you might be missing or aren't sure about? do you make sure to check for accuracy? do you try to make it as good as possible?
sounds like the same thing to me. only yours is a fictional object, not a fictional character
we just want the characters to stay true to themselves and how they've always been played. If James Bond doesn't say 'shaken, not stirred', or drive an aston martin (I believe it was, not a bond fan), it's not james bond ;o). i'm not even a fan of that series and i know that there are some things that just work.
kristen jones
Master Member
fixed.
Last edited:
kristen jones
Master Member
I suppose that's your choice. Everybody has the right to decide to intentionally limit their experience...plug their ears and cover their eyes and hum loudly so that the things going on around them seem to not exist.
Yep...everyone has that right.
I suppose boycotting ROTS due to dissapointed with AOTC makes a modicum of sense but to apply that same reasoning to TFA is insane.
kristen jones
Master Member
Yup. Totally agree.
KrangPrime
Master Member
not if you haven't liked any of JJ's past work. simply preference not to give it a chance. no conspiracy needed.
crabra comander
Master Member
That would be like not liking Spielbergs work in reverse viewing order. I did like Super 8 though.
Okay, now this I have a problem with. A "were we even watching the same show?!" sort of problem. In TOS, I saw:
- ...Kirk's best friend at the Academy talk about how focused Kirk was on his studies and career and needing to be dragged out of his room to go on dates his friend had set up for him...
- ...a memory-given-life of a woman he fell in love with while at the Academy -- presumably thans to Gary's matchmaking, who he regretted leaving behind for the sake of his career (something that would repeat with Antonia), to the point that, over a decade later, what he'd done and what he'd lost still nagged at him...
- ...a handful of female crewmenbers (and one former Academy classmate) who he dated, but it never went anywhere (nice to see Starfleet is a service that doesn't prohibit fraternization)...
- ...Kirk fall seriously in love with three women, each of whom he had to watch die...
- ...and a few female heads-of-state/guards/unwitting pawns on planets that were holding or threatening his ship/crew, whose attraction to him he used to try to find a way to resolve things.
Out of all of that, I see a person with a healthy sexuality trying to find (and keep) the right partner, with not the best of luck in doing so. I mean, hell, he got his son back in his life, only to have him die almost immediately. He even had to kill his steel-and-stardrive lady himself. When he says "My god, Bones, what have I done", looking up at the Enterprise's hulk burning down through the atmosphere, I always saw that, all the way back to first viewing in 1984, as someone who'd taken the only way out of a fatal situation that he could see, but it meant killing a thing that was as much a person -- and jealous lover -- to him as any flesh-and-blood being could be, and I felt so bad for him. One thing I never got from the series and films was "Kirk is a hedonist/womanizer", and I am baffled that that's what entered the zeitgeist.
--Jonah
Last edited:
Agree. Mostly the popular image of Kirk is taken from parody, not the actual show. Exhibit A: most Kirk impersonators aren't impersonating Shatner, they are impersonating Jim Carrey from his Star Trek sketch on In Living Color.
Last edited:
glunark
Sr Member
I see nothing in the original series that indicated Sulu's sexuality one way or the other, the only time we ever saw him flirting in any meaningful way it was the mirror universe's Sulu, and we already know from DS9 that some mirror universe dopplegangers are gay, so why not the other way around?
Maybe its only the mirror universe Sulu that was straight.
Maybe its only the mirror universe Sulu that was straight.
firesprite
Master Member
To be clear, my issue here is not that they made Sulu gay. It means nothing to the story so it shouldn't be an issue one way or the other. My issue is with this comment from Pegg's statement:
We could have introduced a new gay character, but he or she would have been primarily defined by their sexuality, seen as the ‘gay character’, rather than simply for who they are, and isn’t that tokenism?
As a writer, I work hard to make sure none of my characters are "tokens". For him to claim that somehow creating an original character who is just as competent and fully realized as any of the other crew members aboard the Enterprise (your mileage may vary because I think this series of movies relies a bit too much on people having preexisting knowledge of them to give the narratives resonance), would be any less "real" than giving Sulu a husband and child is a straw man argument at its finest.
It's disappointing to me. I like Pegg, but more and more lately, he makes it hard for me to like him because of his general combativeness if there's any indication of less than total acceptance of his work.
We could have introduced a new gay character, but he or she would have been primarily defined by their sexuality, seen as the ‘gay character’, rather than simply for who they are, and isn’t that tokenism?
As a writer, I work hard to make sure none of my characters are "tokens". For him to claim that somehow creating an original character who is just as competent and fully realized as any of the other crew members aboard the Enterprise (your mileage may vary because I think this series of movies relies a bit too much on people having preexisting knowledge of them to give the narratives resonance), would be any less "real" than giving Sulu a husband and child is a straw man argument at its finest.
It's disappointing to me. I like Pegg, but more and more lately, he makes it hard for me to like him because of his general combativeness if there's any indication of less than total acceptance of his work.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
