Jump to content

Star Trek: Beyond


Recommended Posts

It means she has the cool noise the communicator makes when they use  it as her alert tone on her phone.

 

 

Probably something about Uhura being a strong female character despite the fact that the original series  gave her  the  square root of f-all to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lolly said:

It means she has the cool noise the communicator makes when they use  it as her alert tone on her phone.

 

 

Probably something about Uhura being a strong female character despite the fact that the original series  gave her  the  square root of f-all to do.

 

It may be damning with faint praise, but having a woman on the bridge at all was fairly progressive for the time, and a black woman at that.

 

I used to use that communicator tone for my phone incidentally. I've since upgraded to an actual communicator connected via Bluetooth. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh the trailers are so far apart on this I don't know what to believe. I'll have to wait for the reviews.

 

The first trailers painted it as a full of dumb action adventure and the later ones feel more Next Generation (the movies).

 

But considering all Star Trek movies have been bad, compared to the TV shows, I guess it doesn't matter. Since when did people start caring about the movies? 

 

I like the Rihanna song, in the sense I like musicals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, InsideOutBoy said:

But considering all Star Trek movies have been bad, compared to the TV shows, I guess it doesn't matter. Since when did people start caring about the movies? 

 

I can't come up with a lucid response to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/star-trek-beyond-george-takei-sulu-really-unfortunate

 

It's interesting that George Takei is apparently not comfortable with Sulu being revealed as gay in the new film - he seems to be saying that it's not in keeping with the character Gene Roddenberry created, and would rather they had a character who had a history of being gay, rather than sudden changing his sexuality as if he's coming out of the closet.

 

Did Sulu have any kind of love life in the original films or the original series?

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, K said:

Did Sulu have any kind of love life in the original films or the original series?

 

Not that I can recall. (Think he does in some novels :P)

 

He has a daughter in one of the films, but then not mention of other parent/mother :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hexx said:

 

Not that I can recall. (Think he does in some novels :P)

 

He has a daughter in one of the films, but then not mention of other parent/mother :)

 

 

I can sort of see where Takei is coming from - making an established character gay runs the risk of tokenism - but presumably the counter-argument would be that sexuality in the 23rd century is about as notable as someone's blood group, so nobody previously mentioning him being gay is irrelevant. I guess it depends on how the new film handles it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GT also says the Roddenberry didn't want Sulu at the time to be gay as it was 'pushing the envelope too far' and the show wouldn't air.

 

So GT seems loyal to GR, and his "vision" of the character (stated on screen or not) as straight.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't see it in the article there, but Pegg's response is interesting:

 

Quote

I have huge love and respect for George Takei, his heart, courage and humour are an inspiration. However, with regards to his thoughts on our Sulu, I must respectfully disagree with him.

 

He’s right, it is unfortunate, it’s unfortunate that the screen version of the most inclusive, tolerant universe in science fiction hasn’t featured an LGBT character until now. 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?

 

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.

 

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. Trek rightly gets a lot of love for featuring the first interracial kiss on US television, but Plato’s Stepchildren was the lowest rated episode ever.

The viewing audience weren’t open minded enough at the time and it must have forced Roddenberry to modulate his innovation. His mantra was always ‘infinite diversity in infinite combinations’. If he could have explored Sulu’s sexuality with George, he no doubt would have. Roddenberry was a visionary and a pioneer but we choose our battles carefully.

 

Our Trek is an alternate timeline with alternate details. Whatever magic ingredient determines our sexuality was different for Sulu in our timeline. I like this idea because it suggests that in a hypothetical multiverse, across an infinite matrix of alternate realities, we are all LGBT somewhere.

 

Whatever dimension we inhabit, we all just want to be loved by those we love (and I love George Takei). I can’t speak for every reality but that must surely true of this one. Live long and prosper.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also disagree with Takei. Even if you take the view that every single character in TOS was specifically and deliberately designed to be straight, Sulu's sexuality is hardly the biggest change to come out of the reboot. It certainly wouldn't be fitting if Sulu had been closeted all this time, but he hasn't. It's just never come up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's any right or wrong with making Sulu gay.   It's obviously well intentioned and 'a good thing' in general.   And George Takei's reaction is entirely understandable.  He wasn't playing the character as a (closeted) gay man.  Perhaps he would have played him differently if that was the intent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but then Chris Pine plays Kirk differently to Shatner, and Quinto plays Spock differently to Nimoy and so on. The Abram's Sulu being gay has no bearing whatsoever on Takei's prime universe Sulu.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see an openly gay character in Star Trek, but I do think that choosing a) one of the most minor (in the current crop of films, at least) of the bridge crew, and b) specifically picking the character famous for having been portrayed by a gay actor in the original series feels a bit off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.