So much fuss over 10 seconds? Surely it's a joke? - Star Trek Beyond (2016) Discussion

[–] Beauq81 8 years ago

I don't get it, either. It's clearly an homage to George Takei.

Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better.

reply

[–] steve4192 8 years ago

It's an homage to George Takei that George Takei himself thought was bullcrap. George took pride in his ability to play a character that was different from himself, and feels that making the character more like him is a disservice to that character.

reply

[–] Beauq81 8 years ago

Well, they tried. That he didn't like it is a different thing.

Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better.

reply

[–] falacta 8 years ago

That criticism would imply new Sulu actor is gay and like Takei, otherwise it makes little sense.

reply

[–] Apex57 7 years ago

They're playing the same character. By making this Sulu gay, they are retroactively making Takei's Sulu gay too.

===
This comment was typed in front of a live studio audience.

reply

[–] Kyumonryu 7 years ago

It's a reboot. They did not change the original star trek with it. And honestly, who gives a flying turd what sjw Takei thinks? That dude is a complete joke.

...but they hung him anyway.
Hanged, Ami. Your father was not a tapestry.

reply

[–] broforcesquad 7 years ago

I never really got why Takei was so upset about it, but he is entitled to his opinion. It seems like in Beyond they made Sulu gay to try and be more inclusive and represent different socio cultural groups in the film. Hopefully that's how most people interpreted it.

Superheroes. Movies. Superhero Movies
broforcesquad.com
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCJML5XTK

reply

[–] donbizzaro 8 years ago

These folks are guilty of disservice to the entire crew of characters.
The whole thing is a circle jerk imo.

reply

[–] raistian77 8 years ago

"We should be honoring Gene ... We should be paying tribute to him rather than to me because it's not really about me. Yes I am gay, and I am an active advocate for LGBT equality, but don't pay tribute to me. It's not about me, or Sulu. It's about Gene and what he did."--Takei

What he wanted was a new character to be LGBT, but fully endorsed the idea of a gay character in Star Trek Beyond. He did NOT think it was bullcrap at all, he thought that changing an existing character would be a lazy and too easy way to do it.

I noticed people seem to be pretending that Mr. Takei's reaction to Sulu being gay was that the writers were "forcing" the LGBT lifestyle on the audience, that is incorrect his reaction was more "about time"

"I said, 'Oh at long last, the issue of LGBT people is being introduced into Star Trek.' I had been campaigning for a long time on that."--Takei

He just thought personally the creative way to do it right is to introduce a new character that was LGBT and not to change an existing character.

reply

[–] jakkfrost 8 years ago

Well I personally thought it was cool, but I understand George's position too.

Tommy... how's the peeping?

reply

[–] mitzibishi 7 years ago

George took pride in his ability to play a character that was different from himself

Well you could say he played that character in life until he came out.

reply

[–] DTWD 8 years ago

Was it even 10 seconds?

But yeah, some people have got some serious problems if they can get upset by something as innocuous as that. If we hadn't been told going in I don't think a lot of people would have even registered it as a gay relationship.

reply

[–] docp 7 years ago

I never even noticed it! It must, therefore, have seemed perfectly natural and innocuous.

reply

[–] lantzn 7 years ago

Same here, but I wasn't even aware of this talk of him being gay in the first place. I just found out about it in the thread. That said, I honestly thought the guy was either a father or older brother, it never even dawned on me a partner.

reply

[–] Foot_of_Davros 8 years ago

The one thing I hated about the gay Sulu scene was the missed opportunity to make his partner look almost exactly like Kirk - so much so, that when Kirk looked over he had to do a double take (like that pigeon in Moonraker).

That would have been truly awesome, been something William Shatner and George Takei would have appreciated, and set up some great tention in subsequent bridge scenes.

The truth about Marti Pellow
https://youtu.be/C0VOJ0Z3vY0

reply

[–] knytrydr 8 years ago

What point did it serve? It did not add to the story. It was a token gesture that not even Takei himself liked.
It was just a meaningless "Oh look we are so progressive" action. Symbolism over substance

reply

[–] Arfpint 8 years ago

I agree that it was pointless, but at the same time, why is it "progressive"? It's just some guy meeting his partner after a long time away.

It's just a tiny meaningless moment of two people re-uniting, that's it.

Forever 9 Angels

reply

[–] knytrydr 8 years ago

It's "progressive" because the writers amd producers made such a big deal about the fact they did it.

reply

[–] stevefisher 8 years ago

They did? When?

reply

[–] knytrydr 8 years ago

Since before the movie got released in the theaters.

----------
Star Trek Canon is more of what you'd call guidelines then actual rules!

reply

[–] jakkfrost 8 years ago

I didn't even know about it til I saw the movie a few days ago.

Tommy... how's the peeping?

reply

[–] timothy-jan-atkins 8 years ago

I found it annoying that his dude was asian as well. Why not mexican?

reply

[–] persen1 7 years ago

I found it annoying that his dude was asian as well. Why not mexican?

Most likely because of their daughters name: Demora Sulu
I doubt the baby you see his partner is carrying would end up with a pure Asian name, if Sulu's partner was a Mexican, Afro American, Caucasian or what ever other ethnic background his partner would have.

reply

[–] timothy-jan-atkins 8 years ago

I found it annoying that his dude was asian as well. Why not mexican? and why no kiss?

reply

[–] kya1 7 years ago

I also wondered why no kiss - surely that would have been the natural reaction to being reunited with one's partner? Or would a kiss have been a step too far?

________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAIJ3Rh5Qxs

reply

[–] martin3-3 8 years ago

Of course it was pointless. Do you folks really don't get it? In the times of Startrek TOS, there had to be a black actor in it. Uhura. She didn't do much else than looking good and saying Yes Captain. But she was there because she was black. And that was a good thing. That's what made Whoopie Goldberg join the Startrek universe. Today we have the situation that producers seem to be forced to put some gay people in every TV show. It is required, obviously. The big problem is that while it is absolutely right and positive to see people of different colours of skin on screen, with gays it is a different story. Many normal, heterosexual people, are offended by this and with good reason. While being black, or red, or "yellow" is completely normal in nature, being gay is against nature because nature wants its creatures to reproduce. The put gay people in TV-shows or movies without any other reason than that there have to be gays too, will result in the producers loosing a lot of their audiences. When I saw those pirates kissing each other in Black Sails, I stopped watching the show immediatly. I absolutely support that gays have the same rights and should not be discriminated in daily life! We are all human beings, after all. However, it shouldn't be shown so often in movies and shows. That is contraproductive and does not serve the cause of gay people at all. That's my opinion. End of transmission.

reply

[–] tb-sch 7 years ago

being gay is against nature because nature wants its creatures to reproduce.

Tell that the ants or bees. One queen is reproducing. All the others, according to you, act against nature.
Homosexuality appears in wildlife btw. Even in humans it might have a function to allow the communities to survive. While there are not gay parents, there can be very well gay uncles and aunts.

When I saw those pirates kissing each other in Black Sails, I stopped watching the show immediatly.

Maybe it is good that there are less and less shows for people like you. You don't deserve quality tv.

reply

[–] martin3-3 7 years ago

Ants and bees? That's a good one. Those animals have a different way to reproduce. You don't seem to understand. Nature wants its creatures to reproduce in the way appropriate to each species. In the way nature intends. It's really that easy.

reply

[–] tb-sch 7 years ago

Nature wants its creatures to reproduce in the way appropriate to each species.

And when you look at the units early humans formed, they were optimized for exactly that. At no point was it about everybody reproducing at once. Of course the question is how far you want to go back. When we left the trees? Or the water?
Nature is about survival of the species which adapts the best. Squeezing out offspring is just one strategy, but by no means the only one "natural".

reply

[–] ShadowsGathered 7 years ago

Would you mind naming a few other "natural" strategies?

~ the hardest thing in this world... is to live in it ~

reply

[–] tb-sch 7 years ago

A lot of mamals handle it like packs of wolves and have one male to reproduce, while the others just stabilize the group or challenge the alpha.
Meerkats teach their young how to eat risky food rather than to squeeze out enough that they would survive by trial and error.
The idea that number is the only factor leading for a species to survive is obviously utter nonsense.

reply

[–] kya1 7 years ago

When I saw those pirates kissing each other in Black Sails

I haven't seen that, but if they were away at sea for a long time, away from female company, maybe they just craved some human affection?

________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAIJ3Rh5Qxs

reply

[–] ecanarensis 7 years ago

Sorry Martin, but any time anyone brings up the "nature abhors homosexuality" argument it merely shows they know nothing whatsoever about nature, or animals. In just about every species thus far studied, especially mammalian & avian, there is always a relatively low but definite percentage of the population who practice "homosexuality," by mating &/or setting up housekeeping permanently.

Rant, scream, & hyperventilate all you want; if God designed the animals, he built homosexuality into all of 'em. If nature & evolution were the 'designers,' they did the same thing. It is simply a fact of life; homosexuality is. If everyone in a species practiced it, obviously that species wouldn't survive. If a relatively small percentage does, some or all of the time, no problem, things go on. The ontological development of gender is a much more complicated & non-binary process than most people realize, & there's lots of opportunities for placement along the gender/gender preference spectrum. It's only the "icky-poo-yuck" response of certain individuals that makes it any sort of problem....for them, & thus (tragically) for others.

Sorry, but facts trump hysteria, no matter what certain folks would like to believe. And there really are such things as real facts.

reply

[–] powermetal 7 years ago

I am religious and homosexuality is a sin. Period. I don't need you telling me otherwise. There are 2.2 billion Christians in the world and 1.6 billion Muslims. It is also a sin in Judaism. While not all the people that practice those religions actually follow them closely, their doctrines tell them it is a sin. You have no higher moral authority than my God.

reply

[–] teppo-2 7 years ago

"Your God", being the invention of man, can't exactly have a higher moral authority than a person. In fact a fictional entity does not have any authority whatsoever.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] therickers 7 years ago

exactly

reply

[–] junktom 8 years ago

As far as I interpreted the scene, Sulu was greeted by his older brother / cousin / colleague or other close companion who brought his daughter. I read no homosexual relationship there and don't see the fuss.

And so what if Sulu is gay? It's alternative timeline and they can change anything they like! And if Elton John can have same-sex marriage and have a child in 2010, why can't it be in 2263?

Classics are names that everyone heard, yet most have never seen!!

reply

[–] knytrydr 8 years ago

Because that's not who the character is. Gene Roddenbery has said so, George Takei has said so. Takei himself does not like this change.
Changing the timeline can change your job, your home, your spouse, but it cannot change your sex, or sexual orientation. It doesn't make any sense.

----------
Star Trek Canon is more of what you'd call guidelines then actual rules!

reply

[–] nightwishouge 7 years ago

Changing the timeline can change your job, your home, your spouse, but it cannot change your sex, or sexual orientation. It doesn't make any sense.

They used the "alternate timeline" excuse to change Ricardo Montalban into Benedict Cumberbatch. You're either on board with the concept or you aren't.

reply

[–] kennyamac 7 years ago

yeah, with all the internet fuss made about this i was watching out for it... turns out he was just met at the 'airport' by his brother with his neice... at least thats the way most people could/would/might interpret it... no big deal... and nothing to get stressed out about...(i asked my wife and she thought he was saying hello to a friend or family member at the 'airport'...

reply

[–] donbizzaro 8 years ago

Sulu can blo Scotty on the bridge for all I care, just stop making Spock cry every 20 mins. Now that to me is weird.

reply

[–] Syntheticon 8 years ago

When I saw this thread, I thought it must have been people complaining about the ridiculous beastie boys destroys the aliens while the ship surfs a wave/pipe of fire scene but that went longer than 10 seconds so I was curious. Turns out everyone was worried about a completely forgettable family reunion. Move along people.

hypocritelunaticfanaticheretic
It's almost never Lupus

reply

[–] redsmurph 8 years ago

It could have been 1 microsecond. It's the fact that he presented himself as a homosexual that people reacted to, not what he did. Human nature.

reply