Star Trek Beyond

[KrangPrime]

yeah.

though the equal give people a doubt benefit has me wondering though.. how much of this was his decision? isn't he only co writer?
it could also have been a studio thing to add it in. and now he's the face of it trying to defend it.

It shouldn't matter who you add so long as they are a well written character. sulu was probably only chosen because of takei, and the added controversy/known character syndrome. they probably felt it'd add more impact and seem bolder rather than putting in a passing conversation by two lower deck people talking about life. 'oh look at that, a gay character. here one second, gone the next'. but sulu is always on screen. did that make sense?

although, as i think has been pointed out elsewhere, this really isn't the first gay character in the series. wasn't alternate kira going after dax?
no one had a problem with that in the 90s. and then you had the pre Trill episode of TNG with Dr.Beverly.

 

[tgreco]

not if you haven't liked any of JJ's past work. simply preference not to give it a chance. no conspiracy needed.

Someone gets it!

Sorry folks, but I think Abrams is a complete hack, who wants to be Speilburg or Lucas so bad he can't stand it.
and judging by what he did to Star Trek, I already figured what he would do to Star Wars.
And based on what I've read about it, I wasn't too far off.

Not gonna apologize for refusing to follow the herd, and using my own judgement

 

[Mola Rob]

To me a person isn't gay or straight, black or white, they are just people. I wish we would just dispose of labels altogether and stop making a big deal out of a characters sexual orientation or skin color. Just tell a compelling story and people will buy a ticket. I for one will not be paying to see STB in the theater simply because it's not Star Trek.

 

[KrangPrime]

To me a person isn't gay or straight, black or white, they are just people. I wish we would just dispose of labels altogether and stop making a big deal out of a characters sexual orientation or skin color. Just tell a compelling story and people will buy a ticket. I for one will not be paying to see STB in the theater simply because it's not Star Trek.

at best, i'll do what i did with darkness and give it a rental.

 

[JD]

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.

I think you're looking too much into his quote. I think it's more simple than you're taking it to mean... I read it as creating a gay character simply to be gay. It would serve no other purpose other than to be the gay Trek person.

I also don't read the statement as combative - you're right, Pegg can be combative. I strongly dislike his rants against the Star Wars Prequels. He's been accused of being a bit of cyber bully... I want to like Simon, kinda as the little guy made good - rising up from Spaced and the like - and I still like him. He could just tone it down a bit.

 

[Probe Droid]

If adding a gay character had been done with the initial film in the reboot, undoubtedly, it still would have raised a few eyebrows, but it could have been looked at as part of a new vision, blah, blah, blah, all that Hollywood crap. But to do this in the 3rd film to a character who hasn't been gay in the first 50 years of his existence smacks of kowtowing to the current PC atmosphere, no matter what Pegg says. When plotting the story of a science fiction action film, how does a character's sexual orientation even come into play? Unless it's a core element of the plot, what does it have to do with anything? And his asserting disbelief that GR's decision to make everyone straight was an artistic one is based on what exactly? Is there any evidence proving this anywhere? If yes, then produce it and quell the naysayers.

Otherwise, you're just trying to dodge the criticism you knew was coming by deflecting it to the guy that fans trust. Take responsibility for your actions, pal. More Hollywood bull.

 

[cyclocrosschris]

there are rumors floating around that Luke Skywalker himself may be revealed to be gay...perhaps this is an attempt for Trek to "be first",,,, Since we now apparently live in our own alternate universe where Ghostbusters are women, all the women in Game of Thrones are rising to power, and TFA is a female first movie,,,, heck. the reimagined BSG had Starbuck and Boomer roll reversals..... Every summer movie is looking for an edge before they get blown out of the box office by Rogue ONE. (also female centric) ........ this is not a political nor incindeary post.... just a summation of the changing landscape of hollywood. Enjoy the movies you like.

 

[Jeyl]

When plotting the story of a science fiction action film, how does a character's sexual orientation even come into play?

When the couple consider having kids. That's about it. And even with that, Star Trek is going to have Sulu be a gay parent so that line can be blurred.

Here's a better question you should ask. If you were to turn a straight science fiction couple into a gay couple by changing one of the character's gender, how would that impact the story? You could change Deckard from Blade Runner into a woman and have her fall for Rachel and nothing would have to be changed. Same with Neo/Trinity from the Matrix, Wall-E and EVE from Wall-E, Flash and Dale from Flash Gordon, Korban and Leeloo from the Fifth Element, about 90% of all the romances from the Marvel/DC movies ect. It's easy.

Unless it's a core element of the plot, what does it have to do with anything?

Uh, that gay people exist in this universe? That detail alone can mean so much for a lot of people. And despite that tight rope walking Gene trying to incorporate gay characters into Star Trek, you could look at the series as a whole and theorize that somewhere, somehow, someone intentionally eliminated all symptoms of homosexuality in the future. There is nothing but straight people in Star Trek, and the instances where same-sex relationships could possibly work (and surprise surprise, they don't) are undermined by the fact that these relationships were originally straight ones. Dax was male when she romanced Lenara, and Crusher broke off her relationship with Odan when his symbiont ended up being put in a female host. Or how about that one time when Riker fell for the genderless Soren, who was conveniently played by an actress.

Oh, speaking of that episode, this is what Rick Berman had to say about casting a woman for the role of Soren.

"having Riker engaged in passionate kisses with a male actor might have been a little unpalatable to viewers."​

Holy lord. He deliberately pandered to his homophobic viewers. And if you think he was just trying to be careful in not alienating his audience, understand that he was all for a scene in Star Trek Nemesis where Troi gets sexually mind raped by two bad guys at the same time.

 

[AJTaliesen]

Holy lord. He deliberately pandered to his homophobic viewers. And if you think he was just trying to be careful in not alienating his audience, understand that he was all for a scene in Star Trek Nemesis where Troi gets sexually mind raped by two bad guys at the same time.

Not sure how old you are, but 1992 was a very different time for public feelings about homosexuality. For reference, it would be another 20 YEARS before either political party would openly support equality as their official stance.

Here's a better question you should ask. If you were to turn a straight science fiction couple into a gay couple by changing one of the character's gender, how would that impact the story? You could change Deckard from Blade Runner into a woman and have her fall for Rachel and nothing would have to be changed. Same with Neo/Trinity from the Matrix, Wall-E and EVE from Wall-E, Flash and Dale from Flash Gordon, Korban and Leeloo from the Fifth Element, about 90% of all the romances from the Marvel/DC movies ect. It's easy.

That's just silly. Changing the gender impacts the entire psychology of the character. Maybe it makes the story better, maybe worse, but to pretend it has no impact ignores an awful lot of context.


Now in this case...it's not really a "change" as such. This isn't the Sulu we know...this is bizarro timeline Sulu and we've never had anything either way to say whether bizarro timeline Sulu is strait. So in this case, It really doesn't change anything and probably will make a lot of people happy.

I just wish they were less blase about Takei's opinion of the character he helped create.

And none of it changes that the first two movies created too weak a story to entice many of us to see more.


But, since it's been brought up...for the record: choosing not to see a movie is not a character flaw. If you've reached the point where you actually look down on people because the ads were insufficient to entice them to a movie you plan on seeing, then you need to step back and do some self examination.

 

[JD]

That's just silly. Changing the gender impacts the entire psychology of the character. Maybe it makes the story better, maybe worse, but to pretend it has no impact ignores an awful lot of context.

But, no one changed the gender of Sulu... this isn't Battlestar Galactica.

I just wish they were less blase about Takei's opinion of the character he helped create.

This I can agree with... if he wasn't speaking for a dead man that might disown the entire JJ timeline.

And none of it changes that the first two movies created too weak a story to entice many of us to see more.

This too, I can agree with - because the JJ Trek isn't very Trek-like, well, to me - and quite a few others.

But, since it's been brought up...for the record: choosing not to see a movie is not a character flaw. If you've reached the point where you actually look down on people because the ads were insufficient to entice them to a movie you plan on seeing, then you need to step back and do some self examination.

It's not about just the ads. It's deeper than that - when you (figuratively) jump up and down screaming about Sulu being gay and make certain claims and accusations - all while having a Trek avatar on a Trek thread on a "geek" forum... and post repeatedly about this movie and then drop the (proverbial) bombshell that you're not going to see the movie - even when payment for the ticket is offered to you? You even infer that you never intended to see it? Well, then I respectfully disagree - it is a character flaw.

At one point, I might've skipped out on this movie. The ads and trailers just aren't doing it for me. However, early reviews are indicate otherwise... but, the reason isn't that Sulu or some other fictional character is now gay.

 

[KrangPrime]

there are rumors floating around that Luke Skywalker himself may be revealed to be gay...perhaps this is an attempt for Trek to "be first",,, /QUOTE]

I think mark was just joking with that... but, and don't hate me for saying this, every movie does NOT need a gay character, and some of these articles like 'star trek was first'..ugh.
Don't ruin a story or a character just to appear progressive.

even sulu understands that.

 

[JD]

I think mark was just joking with that... but, and don't hate me for saying this, every movie does NOT need a gay character, and some of these articles like 'star trek was first'..ugh.
Don't ruin a story or a character just to appear progressive.

even sulu understands that.

Not true. Takei is "delighted" there is an LGBT character in the new Trek movie - he's just not happy it's Sulu.

 

[Angelus Lupus]

Oh, speaking of that episode, this is what Rick Berman had to say about casting a woman for the role of Soren.

"having Riker engaged in passionate kisses with a male actor might have been a little unpalatable to viewers."​

Holy lord. He deliberately pandered to his homophobic viewers. And if you think he was just trying to be careful in not alienating his audience, understand that he was all for a scene in Star Trek Nemesis where Troi gets sexually mind raped by two bad guys at the same time.

Yeah, that's kinda... ugh. I mean, at first glance it might seem like it's progressive, but when you take a closer look, it's clearly queerbaiting. They could have done the same story with Soren identifying as male, could even have still have a female (but androgynous looking) actor. Even if they's had a male in the role, it could have worked, Berman seems unable to imagine a romantic scene, or a way to convey attraction, without 'passionate kisses'. Blimey, Shakespeare had that figured out (and with two male actors, one playing female) with his 'hands' dialogue in Romeo and Juliet.
That reminds me, I really ought to go and put heteronormativity and queerbaiting in the 'Things you're tired of seeing in movies' thread (though they're just as prevalent on TV, too)

 

[Jeyl]

Not sure how old you are, but 1992 was a very different time for public feelings about homosexuality. For reference, it would be another 20 YEARS before either political party would openly support equality as their official stance.

I understand, but that still doesn't excuse the bigotry that the studios and the public had. Whether their intolerance was by ignorance or just feeling icky about it, the studios were more than willing to put their concerns above those who believed Star Trek could have done something positive with this kind of representation. Still, I guess this could be looked at as a sort of blessing since the show runners idea of representing the Native American culture on Star Trek: Voyager was to depict their entire culture as dumb babbling buffoons who didn't gain intelligence until they were touched by an alien... played by a white guy.

 

[Angelus Lupus]

I understand, but that still doesn't excuse the bigotry that the studios and the public had. Whether their intolerance was by ignorance or just feeling icky about it, the studios were more than willing to put their concerns above those who believed Star Trek could have done something positive with this kind of representation. Still, I guess this could be looked at as a sort of blessing since the show runners idea of representing the Native American culture on Star Trek: Voyager was to depict their entire culture as dumb babbling buffoons who didn't gain intelligence until they were touched by an alien... played by a white guy.

Exactly. Remember, if TOS had thought this way (don't do it, the audience might say "eww") then we never would have had the Kirk/Uhura kiss. Instead they found a way to work it in to the story like so many other things they did - pushing the boundaries just enough to make people think and talk about it.

 

[AJTaliesen]

Push the boundaries yes, which Trek has always done, but too far is too far for a time period.

Also, be careful judging the past for not having the same values we have now. Someday you will be the one held to that yardstick.

 

[astroboy]

Maybe we should just get a new trek series with a gay (or two) senior officer.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[tripoli]

Takei: Gay 'Star Trek' character would be 'unfortunate'

http://video.foxnews.com/v/50277416...nate/?playlist_id=2827720506001#sp=show-clips

I think he respects Gene's version of Star Trek. Certainly in the ToS and other Star Trek television shows universe, this issue has been tackled repeatedly. So yes, I agree, this is an appeasement to the millinial mentality and by doing so, actually does more harm than good to the movement.

 

[astroboy]

If he really respects Gene's vision he should use every opportunity to criticize the JJverse he has.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[JD]

Takei: Gay 'Star Trek' character would be 'unfortunate'

http://video.foxnews.com/v/50277416...nate/?playlist_id=2827720506001#sp=show-clips

I think he respects Gene's version of Star Trek. Certainly in the ToS and other Star Trek television shows universe, this issue has been tackled repeatedly. So yes, I agree, this is an appeasement to the millinial mentality and by doing so, actually does more harm than good to the movement.

Misleading headline is misleading.

Takei is "delighted" there is an LGBT character in the new Trek movie - he's just not happy it's Sulu.