Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Discussion in 'Movies and Television' started by QLRformer, Jul 13, 2013.

  1. Omegashark18

    Omegashark18 Combaticon turned Autobot

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2014
    Posts:
    16,225
    News Credits:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +10,176
  2. ArmadaJetfire

    ArmadaJetfire Yamato is go! ;D

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Posts:
    4,345
    Trophy Points:
    267
    Likes:
    +48
    Bones and Spock were gay in the orginal series. Thats why they argued so much, the make up sex was fantastic!
     
  3. emoo

    emoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Posts:
    1,722
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Likes:
    +420
    Yeah I like the Franklin design but I'm kind of wondering about an explanation too. The timeline and ship design didn't change until after the nx class ships. Its kind of odd then that if the Franklin predates the nx it has design elements from after the timeline change
     
  4. Gordon_4

    Gordon_4 The Big Engine

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Posts:
    18,196
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    382
    Likes:
    +8,316
    I say that Takei is understandably attached to the character and given he lived through some famously intolerant times to be a homosexual then his opinion carries more weight and authority than mine on both subjects. And if in light of this revelation they decide to reverse the decision, then I'm a-okay with that because in the society portrayed in the Federation it's a non-event either way.
     
  5. Goaliebot

    Goaliebot All Makes and Models

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Posts:
    3,892
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +2,406
    I disagree with Takei, but what's important is his reasons aren't "Ew gays icky, don't want them in Star Trek" (naturally). As he said, "I'm delighted that there's a gay character.".

    My frustration is with the "no gays in muh Star Trek and Star Wars" reactions.
     
  6. User_93049

    User_93049 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Posts:
    15,329
    News Credits:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    332
    Likes:
    +10,376
  7. ClunkerSlim

    ClunkerSlim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Posts:
    1,407
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Likes:
    +1,194
    I can kind of see why Takei is upset. In a way it's like "What? You don't think I could play a convincing straight character so now we have to retcon Sulu as gay? So after years of being forced in the closet, now my character was in the closet this whole time too? Awesome."
     
  8. Rusty24

    Rusty24 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Posts:
    17,008
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +5,839
    I can understand where Takei is coming from. While we have known this character as fans this whole time, Takei has known this character for fifty years (that's over half of his life). He was told what the character would be by the creator. Like I said earlier, it also just seems like an odd decision to make his character gay just because the original actor was gay. I have no problem with it, and it sounds like it's tastefully done, but I can understand why he wouldn't agree with it.
     
  9. Wolfguard

    Wolfguard Your own personal Jesus.

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Posts:
    4,601
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Location:
    Planet California
    Likes:
    +1,999
    I'm with Takei on this. They could have, for example, expanded the backstory on Science Officer 0718 from ST:ID and had him return for this movie. The decision is bizarre and I'm left with the impression that the intent was just for those writers to do something to "feel good" about themselves. Rather than do something which could have added to the mythos, they chose a course which, IMO, absolutely comes off as pandering:

    Look! Sulu is gay, because George is gay, and we're OK with that, and here's the proof. And Star Trek!

    It's like the opposite extreme of bigotry. Not everyone needs a would-be SJW to stand up for them with fists in the air. Sometimes it's good enough to say, "you're awesome, and I'm on your side." And if anyone thinks this is some "I don't want gays in Trek rant" - please. My lesbian friend who I love dearly has the near exact same mindset as me in this regard. She's all about respect, but she doesn't want or need special treatment. Maybe it's because of her Army training and being an Afghan War vet, but girl can stand up for herself and who she is. I'm pretty sure George can too...


    :2c: 
     
  10. bellpeppers

    bellpeppers A Meat Popsicle

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Posts:
    28,136
    News Credits:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Location:
    Somewhere over Macho Grande
    Likes:
    +27,958
    I agree.
    It's not so much storytelling or mythos building as much as it is about proselytizing progressivism.
     
  11. SouthtownKid

    SouthtownKid Headmaster

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Posts:
    26,059
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    357
    Likes:
    +10,558
    I agree with both of these things, but trying to take the long view, I think it will end up being a positive thing. I mean, at the end of the day, we have moved one step further in the direction of a more diverse cast, and fifty years from now, it will just BE -- people won't remember the clumsy way we got there.
     
  12. Raiju

    Raiju Mendokusai desu... Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Posts:
    23,872
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    402
    Likes:
    +12,103
    Flickr:
    Normally I'm all for diversity, but I tend to agree with your assessments. This seems more like the director and writers rejecting Takei's concerns completely in favor of doing something with the character that kinda checks the boxes and nothing more (or to put it more on the nose, to make themselves feel/look good in the name of progressivism).

    I'm certain John Cho is more than capable as an actor to tackle any facet of the Sulu character but it did strike me as a bit disingenuous and patronizing (equal treatment vs. special treatment) in how Takei's thoughts and feelings about the matter were disregarded in the end.

    I also agree that they took the easy, most obvious route by making Sulu gay. Why not Bones? Why not a different, new character like Takei wanted? Is it really a nod of respect toward Takei when it's the actor himself who is gay but not the character (and the actor's wishes weren't even respected, as it turns out)? It's not like the two are exactly one and the same (that's why they call it acting).
     
  13. Hazekiah

    Hazekiah Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Posts:
    3,522
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    217
    Likes:
    +494
    The point of these rebooted films is to rewrite history, and Sulu was never seen to be romantically involved anyhow, nor was his daughter explained in any great detail.

    This development in no way establishes that Sulu had previously been closeted.

    All it does is does is acknowledge Takei's own lifestyle and his own wishes for the franchise, which he'd personally expressed to Roddenberry himself almost half-century-ago, yet was denied due Roddenberry's understandable gunshyness after ratings dropped following the highly-controversial first interracial onscreen kiss.

    Basically, Roddenberry thought it was too much, too soon, and too big a risk.

    Now it ISN'T anymore so they're finally going for it.

    I still applaud and support the decision.
     
  14. Raiju

    Raiju Mendokusai desu... Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Posts:
    23,872
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    402
    Likes:
    +12,103
    Flickr:
    You're assuming that Takei wanted Gene to have Sulu to come out of the closet when Takei could just as easily have wanted Gene to do episodes/stories revolving around gay issues and characters that aren't about Sulu himself. Takei was closeted out of necessity, not Sulu. Is it really that hard to distinguish that Takei is Takei and Sulu is Sulu? One is the actor and the other a character. They are not necessarily (nor should be) one and the same person.

    My main gripe is that the movie runners are saying they made this decision out of honor and respect for Takei when it appears that this wasn't the case at all because they discounted his concerns completely out of hand. And then to say, well, the rebooted movies are not the same thing as TOS and Takei doesn't own the Sulu character. Can't have it both ways. I think the movie runners erroneously conflated Takei the actor and Sulu the character, and then said, "Look, we did this for you! You should feel honored!" It's kinda patronizing and I do get where Takei is coming from in that respect.
     
  15. Hazekiah

    Hazekiah Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Posts:
    3,522
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    217
    Likes:
    +494
    I made none of those assumptions.
     
  16. Raiju

    Raiju Mendokusai desu... Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Posts:
    23,872
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    402
    Likes:
    +12,103
    Flickr:
    Takei's lifestyle is NOT necessarily Sulu's lifestyle. And why should it have to be? Just because the actor is gay automatically means that the character must be too? The whole crux of Takei's disapproval is that the movie runners are conflating actor and character as one and the same.
     
  17. Ephland

    Ephland Let's Go Rangers

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Posts:
    12,905
    News Credits:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    362
    Likes:
    +7,438
    so what if it is?
     
  18. Ash from Carolina

    Ash from Carolina Junior Smeghead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Posts:
    15,966
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +3,239
    I don't mind having a gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or even a transgender character in Star Trek. I think it's a good way to tackle sticky social issues we haven't resolved yet. I'm just not sure making Sulu gay because George Takei is gay was really the solution.

    I'm also not sure that we should dismiss the closet issue since it's wonderful that some people have been free to come out, but that isn't everyone. I am free to be bi-sexual around my friends, but around family I still have to play the role of the straight arrow heterosexual.

    I think it might have been better to have Scotty as the gay character since Nick Frost would have been the perfect actor to play Scotty's partner. Bonus points to the production team if they could have found Nick Frost's old Hyperdrive uniform.

    But honestly who's straight and who's not is way down on my list of problems with the new Star Trek.
     
  19. QLRformer

    QLRformer Seeker

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Posts:
    28,941
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    362
    Likes:
    +20,370
    That's true, an actor's screen presence is not necessarily the same as who they are.

    Case in point: Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox have complained that people think they are hot vamps, when both are now mothers. And how popular was Bill Cosby's comedian personality before those complaints from women came out?

    So yeah, Takei has a point. It's worth noting that Takei doesn't mind a gay character, but he doesn't feel that it needs to be Sulu because of Takei himself.

    ‘Star Trek’s George Takei: Film’s Gay Sulu Reveal Is ‘Unfortunate’ | TVLine

    “I’m delighted that there’s a gay character. Unfortunately, it’s a twisting of [Star Trek creator] Gene [Roddenberry]’s creation, to which he put in so much thought.”
     
  20. lars573

    lars573 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Posts:
    8,480
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +816
    Outside Kirk and Spock most of TOS characters are so paper thin you could add almost anything and it wouldn't be twisting "Gene's vision."