Author Topic: Star Trek- The new Sulu is going to be gay as a tribute to George Takei  (Read 6235 times)

Bubbles

  • Guest
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?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 04:18:47 PM by Rose »

john

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1114
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.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 05:33:05 PM by john »
"Try again. Fail again. Fail Better". Samuel Beckett

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33824
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.

Harrowby Hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5057
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.


Quote
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?
Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?

Aruntraveller

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11627
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!!
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. - God is Love.

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • βε ηερε νοω
    • The Byrds - My Back Pages
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? :)
Ah, but I was so much older then ... I'm younger than that now

Humph Warden Bennett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5013
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.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65801
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'.

Humph Warden Bennett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5013
. 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.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65801
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.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65801
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.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 09:03:59 AM by Nearly Sane »

Humph Warden Bennett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5013

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.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65801
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'

Bubbles

  • Guest
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?


Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65801
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.

Humph Warden Bennett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5013
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.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65801
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.

Bubbles

  • Guest
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.



« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 12:54:32 PM by Rose »

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65801
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?

Bubbles

  • Guest
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.




« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 01:02:36 PM by Rose »

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65801
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.

Bubbles

  • Guest
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.



Bubbles

  • Guest
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.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65801
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?

Bubbles

  • Guest

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.