Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Literature, Music, Art & Entertainment => Topic started by: Bubbles on July 08, 2016, 04:14:07 PM
-
But he doesn't agree because he says it wasn't writers vision.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36744328
Did you know that the original version featured the first onscreen kiss between a black person and a white person?
( disputed)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_Stepchildren
uhura and kirk.
In its day, it's ideas were quite revolutionary.
So I'm not sure having a gay Sulu coming out, goes against the way it was originally written.
What do you think?
-
I think "gays" should be cast in positive roles to help end prejudice etc. And lets face it to reflect reality.
But Sulu is a popular well established character and it seems totally wrong to change the perception of him this late in the day.
It is like rewriting Wuthering Heights with Cathy as a transvestite or James Bond as a black lesbian or Jack Reacher being played by a midget (oops they did that). Just wrong... Write a new story instead.
-
But he doesn't agree because he says it wasn't writers vision.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36744328
Did you know that the original version featured the first onscreen kiss between a black person and a white person?
( disputed)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_Stepchildren
uhura and kirk.
In its day, it's ideas were quite revolutionary.
So I'm not sure having a gay Sulu coming out, goes against the way it was originally written.
What do you think?
Perhaps Kirk and Spock could consummate their long suspected relationship.
-
But he doesn't agree because he says it wasn't writers vision.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36744328
Did you know that the original version featured the first onscreen kiss between a black person and a white person?
( disputed)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_Stepchildren
uhura and kirk.
And did you know that the first couple to seen in a double bed together - on American prime time tv were:
Fred and Wilma Flintstone.
Did you know that the original version featured the first onscreen kiss between a black person and a white person?
( disputed)
Is that disputed because it only refers to US tv rather than anywhere else in the civilised world?
-
Perhaps Kirk and Spock could consummate their long suspected relationship.
This was addressed in I think the original script or possibly the novelisation for the 1st Star Trek movie The Motion Picture where Kirk was musing to himself about the possibility but decided he could never hitch himself to somebody who only mates every 7 years (see also 'Amok Time').
They dropped the musings from the script as it was felt it would make the film seem too ponderous. That really helped!!
-
And did you know that the first couple to seen in a double bed together - on American prime time tv were:
Fred and Wilma Flintstone.
...
It all started with a big bang? :)
-
But he doesn't agree because he says it wasn't writers vision.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36744328
Did you know that the original version featured the first onscreen kiss between a black person and a white person?
( disputed)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_Stepchildren
uhura and kirk.
In its day, it's ideas were quite revolutionary.
So I'm not sure having a gay Sulu coming out, goes against the way it was originally written.
What do you think?
Sulu was never a "sexy" character, the only time that he showed any interest in a female was in the Mirror Mirror episode and that of course was not the "real" Sulu but his double in an alternate universe.
By making him openly gay, one either changes his character from being a cool clinical introvert more into science more than he is into other people, into somebody quite different & therefore changing him completely, or it is added on as an unnecessary afterthought & is therefore pointless.
-
Sulu was never a "sexy" character, the only time that he showed any interest in a female was in the Mirror Mirror episode and that of course was not the "real" Sulu but his double in an alternate universe.
By making him openly gay, one either changes his character from being a cool clinical introvert more into science more than he is into other people, into somebody quite different & therefore changing him completely, or it is added on as an unnecessary afterthought & is therefore pointless.
. It's a nice little nod to George Taken, and what does 'openly gay' mean here? You wouldn't refer to Kirk as 'openly straight'.
-
. It's a nice little nod to George Taken, and what does 'openly gay' mean here? You wouldn't refer to Kirk as 'openly straight'.
As the OP mentions, George ain't too impressed with it.
Kirk was openly straight because of all the skirt chasing that he did.
-
As the OP mentions, George ain't too impressed with it.
Kirk was openly straight because of all the skirt chasing that he did.
Yeah, I think that the writers not listening to him is unfortunate but his comments effectively make a nonsense of him having a sexuality being wrong for the character which you there arguing.
As to 'openly', you seem to have missed the point, had Sulu been shown kissing a woman in the film, would you have complained that he was being shown as 'openly straight '? Seems to me the character is just been shown as 'gay'. When Jake who works for me says he's away with his partner John for a country weekend, I don't think 'Oh look thete's Jake being openly gay. We need to get away from this weird hang up too many people have.
-
I think "gays" should be cast in positive roles to help end prejudice etc. And lets face it to reflect reality.
But Sulu is a popular well established character and it seems totally wrong to change the perception of him this late in the day.
It is like rewriting Wuthering Heights with Cathy as a transvestite or James Bond as a black lesbian or Jack Reacher being played by a midget (oops they did that). Just wrong... Write a new story instead.
In what way is it like any of the above? Star Trek was written originally at a time when it would have been impossible to write a gay character. so give this is a reimagining, and Sulu's sexuality was not central to TOS, I can't see the equivalence.
-
Yeah, I think that the writers not listening to him is unfortunate but his comments effectively make a nonsense of him having a sexuality being wrong for the character which you there arguing.
As to 'openly', you seem to have missed the point, had Sulu been shown kissing a woman in the film, would you have complained that he was being shown as 'openly straight '? Seems to me the character is just been shown as 'gay'. When Jake who works for me says he's away with his partner John for a country weekend, I don't think 'Oh look thete's Jake being openly gay. We need to get away from this weird hang up too many people have.
But it's not about people having hang ups, its about unnecessarily changing a well known character. It's like Simon Wicks, who was a genial sort who unfortunately got involved with people whom he should have avoided, suddenly became a treacherous lothario.
-
But it's not about people having hang ups, its about unnecessarily changing a well known character. It's like Simon Wicks, who was a genial sort who unfortunately got involved with people whom he should have avoided, suddenly became a treacherous lothario.
The hang ups point is about the use of the word 'openly'
-
The hang ups point is about the use of the word 'openly'
Openly just means visibly, as opposed to keeping it to yourself.
Some actors don't act in a way in public that gives a clue to their personal sexuality.
Others do, either gay or straight.
People just assume someone is heterosexual unless they are given visual clues that this isn't the case.
I think you can be openly gay or openly straight.
Or not bother being open about yourself at all.
It's just most people assume someone is heterosexual on first glance.
Does it matter?
-
Openly just means visibly, as opposed to keeping it to yourself.
Some actors don't act in a way in public that gives a clue to their personal sexuality.
Others do, either gay or straight.
People just assume someone is heterosexual unless they are given visual clues that this isn't the case.
I think you can be openly gay or openly straight.
Or not bother being open about yourself at all.
It's just most people assume someone is heterosexual on first glance.
Does it matter?
Yes, it gives the impression that if you state the name of your same sex partner you are being 'openly' gay, whereas if you said it about your opposite sex partner, people wouldn't say someone was being openly straight. It's a hangover from when homosexual people had to hide their sexuality.
Describing a character with a same sex partner in a film as being openly gay supports the idea that we have a different attitude to gay people.
-
The hang ups point is about the use of the word 'openly'
If he keeps it to himself then no point in mentioning it.
Star Trek is supposed to be sci fi not a soap opera.
-
If he keeps it to himself then no point in mentioning it.
Star Trek is supposed to be sci fi not a soap opera.
He is a character being portrayed in a gay relationship. You wouldn't use the tern 'openly' if a straight chaacracter, say Miles O'Brien in ST: DS9, was shown with his wife Keiko.
-
Yes, it gives the impression that if you state the name of your same sex partner you are being 'openly' gay, whereas if you said it about your opposite sex partner, people wouldn't say someone was being openly straight. It's a hangover from when homosexual people had to hide their sexuality.
Describing a character with a same sex partner in a film as being openly gay supports the idea that we have a different attitude to gay people.
I think it's more that most people are assumed to be hetrosexual unless they indicate otherwise.
To do otherwise would be considered impolite, surely?
Given that the majority are hetrosexual
Anyway not everyone goes around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve.
Gay people sometimes appear to because they want to accepted for who they are, sexuality wise.
If you are hetrosexual people just assume and that's fine.
If hetrosexuals are too openly hetrosexual people start wondering what is wrong with them.
Like an old man trying and showing he can still pull the young girls.
I think being openly gay is just as much as about confirming your own sexuality, so other people don't make mistakes.
A bit like wearing a wedding ring.
People like to send signals as to whether they available or not, and who too.
Couples like to be recognised as a couple.
I don't suppose being gay changes that.
Being openly gay can just mean, I'm attached as a couple to this person of the same sex.
It's just human beings really, setting boundaries.
It doesn't have to be negative.
I think hetrosexual people do it all the time but as it's an assumed state, it's just more subtle.
-
I think it's more that most people are assumed to be hetrosexual unless they indicate otherwise.
To do otherwise would be considered impolite, surely?
Given that the majority are hetrosexual
And? What's impolite about thinking that homosexuality should be treated as the same as heterosexuality?
-
And? What's impolite about thinking that homosexuality should be treated as the same as heterosexuality?
People send out signals as I put in my post above they also assume someone isn't gay to start with , as the majority of people are not.
Just human nature.
It isn't treated the same because it's a minority.
It's impolite to assume someone is gay, but not impolite to assume they are hetrosexual.
It's no good saying we shouldn't assume anything because as human beings we naturally do.
-
People send out signals as I put in my post above they also assume someone isn't gay to start with , as the majority of people are not.
Just human nature.
It isn't treated the same because it's a minority.
It's impolite to assume someone is gay, but not impolite to assume they are hetrosexual.
It's no good saying we shouldn't assume anything because as human beings we naturally do.
What is this assumption nonsense? The point is why should it be any more moral if some character is gay so that you attach the word 'openly' to it?
I have no problems not assuming the sexuality of the people I meet.
-
What is this assumption nonsense? The point is why should it be any more moral if some character is gay so that you attach the word 'openly' to it?
I have no problems not assuming the sexuality of the people I meet.
I always assume people are straight, unless I am aware otherwise.
Moral has nothing to do with it.
It's like I would assume a hetrosexual couple with children were married, I would assume they were, unless they chose to tell me differently.
It's not a judgement on them at all.
It's just what most people do.
-
People get very upset if you were to assume they were gay, because they lived with someone of the same sex.
So you assume they are not, which is polite I think.
Before you tell me you don't make such assumptions, we all do.
Even if it's just a woman accompanying a child is its mum.
-
I always assume people are straight, unless I am aware otherwise.
Moral has nothing to do with it.
It's like I would assume a hetrosexual couple with children were married, I would assume they were, unless they chose to tell me differently.
It's not a judgement on them at all.
It's just what most people do.
What you or others assume is irrelevant. The questions why someone who is gay is commented on as 'openly' but someone straight is not.
I don't find any need to assume stuff people's sexuality or marital status, why would you?
-
What you or others assume is irrelevant. The questions why someone who is gay is commented on as 'openly' but someone straight is not.
I don't find any need to assume stuff people's sexuality or marital status, why would you?
Because no one needs to be openly straight, people assume others are straight anyway.
People assume things, so their brains can do more important things.
-
What you or others assume is irrelevant. The questions why someone who is gay is commented on as 'openly' but someone straight is not.
I don't find any need to assume stuff people's sexuality or marital status, why would you?
Me neither. I'm not really interested in what other people do in the bedroom.
-
...
The questions why someone who is gay is commented on as 'openly' but someone straight is not.
...
Surely this is just because there are gay people who are "out" and others that want to keep their sexuality private? Non-gay people don't have that issue unless they have other out of the ordinary tastes. Not a question of morality but of conformity.
I do agree the term is unnecessary as you could just say "gay" or not mention it at all.
-
Me neither. I'm not really interested in what other people do in the bedroom.
No neither am I, I don't think it's about that.
-
Surely this is just because there are gay people who are "out" and others that want to keep their sexuality private? Non-gay people don't have that issue unless they have other out of the ordinary tastes. Not a question of morality but of conformity.
I do agree the term is unnecessary as you could just say "gay" or not mention it at all.
Indeed it is, which is what I've been suggesting. The continued use of the term openly in terms is a character merely being portrayed as having a same sex partner is supporting the idea that it was once hidden. Having seen too many of my friends struggle to come out, having an assumption in built that after that they are still different from heterosexuals and have to be noted as being open simply by saying something that reveals their sexuality like the name of their partner is something we need to move beyond.
There was a fuss when one female character on Doctor Who talked about her wife leaving her as this was apparently part of the 'gay agenda' rather than something that should be unoticeable.
-
No neither am I, I don't think it's about that.
then why make assumptions about it?
-
Because no one needs to be openly straight, people assume others are straight anyway.
People assume things, so their brains can do more important things.
there is no need to assume anything regards this. Perhaps one of tings you might get your brain to do that is important is regard actions by straight and gay people as equal
-
But Sulu is a popular well established character and it seems totally wrong to change the perception of him this late in the day.
I defy you to find anywhere in the original series where Sulu's sexuality is explicitly or implicitly defined as either straight of gay.
Having said that, Simon Pegg is wrong. Introducing a new character who happens to be gay is not tokenism unless you can't write characters and it's blatantly obvious that is why the character is there. Suddenly deciding that Sulu's character is going o be gay especially because the actor who played him is gay is tokenism.
It is like rewriting Wuthering Heights with Cathy as a transvestite or James Bond as a black lesbian
If you try to do that, the result needs to be judged on its artistic merit. I'd say one thing about James Bond: for me, it is an intrinsic part of the character that he is a white misogynist.
Frankly, I don't think reimagining existing characters as black or gay or female (when they were male before) is necessarily a positive way to promote equality. Why not write new strong characters that happen to be black/gay/trans or whatever?
or Jack Reacher being played by a midget (oops they did that). Just wrong... Write a new story instead.
I've read all the books and seen the film. Tom Cruise does a perfectly fine job. Frankly, I find the idea that Jack Reacher is a giant to be a bit of a Mary Sue characteristic. Tom Cruise makes the character more believable, if you ask me.
-
. It's a nice little nod to George Taken
Except that George Takei does not like it because the character he played was apparently straight (I have to take his word for it because Sulu's sexuality was never explored in St TOS.
, and what does 'openly gay' mean here? You wouldn't refer to Kirk as 'openly straight'.
No need to pretend that the situation is symmetrical. People are generally assumed to be straight unless they explicitly say they are not.
-
his comments effectively make a nonsense of him having a sexuality being wrong for the character
He's an actor. His sexuality is irrelevant to the sexuality of the character.
As to 'openly', you seem to have missed the point, had Sulu been shown kissing a woman in the film, would you have complained that he was being shown as 'openly straight '?
Nobody seems to be complaining except George Takei.
When Jake who works for me says he's away with his partner John for a country weekend, I don't think 'Oh look thete's Jake being openly gay. We need to get away from this weird hang up too many people have.
It's a fact of life. Historically, it has been seriously limiting to declare that you are gay. And even today, gay people are a pretty small percentage of the population as well as suffering tough prejudice that being "openly gay" is a difficult decision that many gay people have to make. Do not diminish the prejudice gay people suffer by trying to pretend that it is no big thing to be openly gay.
-
there is no need to assume anything regards this. Perhaps one of tings you might get your brain to do that is important is regard actions by straight and gay people as equal
You are rather assuming that I don't.
-
Indeed it is, which is what I've been suggesting. The continued use of the term openly in terms is a character merely being portrayed as having a same sex partner is supporting the idea that it was once hidden. Having seen too many of my friends struggle to come out, having an assumption in built that after that they are still different from heterosexuals and have to be noted as being open simply by saying something that reveals their sexuality like the name of their partner is something we need to move beyond.
There was a fuss when one female character on Doctor Who talked about her wife leaving her as this was apparently part of the 'gay agenda' rather than something that should be unoticeable.
Well one actor left Dr Who because he felt there was an agenda and it was a children's programme.
-
Except that George Takei does not like it because the character he played was apparently straight (I have to take his word for it because Sulu's sexuality was never explored in St TOS.
No need to pretend that the situation is symmetrical. People are generally assumed to be straight unless they explicitly say they are not.
Yes I'd agree.
That's what I said.
-
Well one actor left Dr Who because he felt there was an agenda and it was a children's programme.
And that is relevant to this how?
-
You are rather assuming that I don't.
No, I am taking it from your position that you think it's reasonable to classify someone telling me the name of their same sex partner is openly being homosexual but that's not true of a heterosexual. I am taking it from you treating them differently
-
No, I am taking it from your position that you think it's reasonable to classify someone telling me the name of their same sex partner is openly being homosexual but that's not true of a heterosexual. I am taking it from you treating them differently
You make far to much of things.
What matters is how someone treats people, and I don't treat gay people any differently to anyone else.
What I assume until I know better, doesn't matter as long as those people are treated respectfully.
I don't care if someone as a couple is married or not, but assume they are until I'm told otherwise.
It saves asking personal questions.
I don't care if two men living together are gay, but assume they are not, until I'm told differently.
To me, that's not prejudice or inequality, but just manners.
I suppose we would assume a unrelated man and woman living together may be a couple, whereas maybe two men or two women, we wouldn't necessarily.
We assume things because we lack information and it's impolite to ask, or maybe we don't think it is our business.
It's not prejudice, it's just i assume people are like the majority because the chances are they are, when they're not, then I just accept it.
🌹
-
Once again, this isn't about assumptions that you make, it is about using the word openly for one sexuality and not another. It is classifying the actions of people differently.
-
Once again, this isn't about assumptions that you make, it is about using the word openly for one sexuality and not another. It is classifying the actions of people differently.
You understand that a random person you see in the street is much more likely to be straight than gay? Furthermore, there are people - mostly gay - who prefer to keep their sexuality a secret for whatever reason, usually they are worried about prejudice.
While it might be nice if being straight or gay had about as much significance as being left or right handed, we don't live in that world yet.
-
You understand that a random person you see in the street is much more likely to be straight than gay? Furthermore, there are people - mostly gay - who prefer to keep their sexuality a secret for whatever reason, usually they are worried about prejudice.
While it might be nice if being straight or gay had about as much significance as being left or right handed, we don't live in that world yet.
Yes, I understand that but find no reason to consider their sexuality at all. And as for the second, the way to get there is not to discriminate in describing a character of one sexuality as being openly of that sexuality when all they do is the same as another sexuality for which you do not use the word.
-
Yes, I understand that but find no reason to consider their sexuality at all.
Well we are in the situation of discussing a situation in which the sexuality of a character in a film is at issue. We can't really avoid considering Sulu's and Takei's sexuality since they are part of the news story.
-
Well we are in the situation of discussing a situation in which the sexuality of a character in a film is at issue. We can't really avoid considering Sulu's and Takei's sexuality since they are part of the news story.
Indeed, not but what does the openly add to HWB's remark?
-
You make far to much of things.
What matters is how someone treats people, and I don't treat gay people any differently to anyone else.
What I assume until I know better, doesn't matter as long as those people are treated respectfully.
I don't care if someone as a couple is married or not, but assume they are until I'm told otherwise.
It saves asking personal questions.
I don't care if two men living together are gay, but assume they are not, until I'm told differently.
To me, that's not prejudice or inequality, but just manners.
I suppose we would assume a unrelated man and woman living together may be a couple, whereas maybe two men or two women, we wouldn't necessarily.
We assume things because we lack information and it's impolite to ask, or maybe we don't think it is our business.
It's not prejudice, it's just i assume people are like the majority because the chances are they are, when they're not, then I just accept it.
I don't like this assumption lark.
In fact I find it annoying. I will explain why.
Myself and my partner belong to the same bank we occasionally have to transfer funds from his account to mine. When my partner tells them he wants to transfer funds to "my parnters account" he is asked "what's your wife's name?" Two assumptions fro the price of one there. Firstly that your partner is married to you and secondly that your partner is of the opposite sex. This happens so often that it is really tiring. I perahps wouldn't mind but we have been with the bank for decades and they do know on their records that we are a couple.
Unsolicited phone calls - when I answer I get on occasions "Is Mrs Surname at home?" "There is no Mrs Surname?" "Are you sure - we have a couple registered as living at your house?" YEs I'm quite sure - and how is the weather in Bangalore?"
Assumptions are lazy and unthinking - and as I said I don't like them.
-
'Openly'
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ttUvsrcxKmI
-
Indeed, not but what does the openly add to HWB's remark?
I'm with Nearly here. Openly is superfluous here. Gay is sufficient to provide the necessary context.