Probably a credit thing. She wanted one thing. The studio wanted another. So in the end, uncredited
HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
Oh, well, I'm glad we cleared that up. Now I guess no one will complain about gay people ever again, since no one has a right to judge anyone or impose their own moral code on others, right? Right???
I don't believe you really thought this one through all the way, regarding this topic or just human society in general.
I think I figured it out about George Takei objecting. If Sulu is gay, it means he's not in a bedpost notching contest with James Kirk. "I've slept with a glamazon! Have you?"
I respectfully disagree. This is a curated forum and in such cases not all opinions are equal or have the right to be spoken. Especially not ones that seek to degrade, diminish, erase, or just make others feel unwelcome because of what they are. That's a policy decision.
I am sure I recall an interview with "Starlog", but electing to go uncredited is sometimes seen as a status statement. Madge Sinclair was a highly respected Emmy nominee (for "Roots"). Judson Scott's agent encouraged him to decline credit on "Star Trek II" because he had just done "The Phoenix" for TV and everyone was predicting he was on the cusp of mega stardom. Oooops. (He told me once that he mistakenly believed he was just relinquishing an opening credit, not all credit.)
Similarly, Whoopi Goldberg deferred opening credit status to Patrick Stewart in "Generations". As an Academy Award winner, her agent could have jostled for a higher credit, but she wanted her friend to enjoy his first top billing.
Madge Sinclair did accept screen credit for her later TNG role (as Geordi's mother), because that character was a focus of the story.
BTW, in the novels, Captain Sinclair-Alexander from ST IV is a recurring character and had a same-sex partner. ("Alexander" comes from the ST IV novelization by Vonda McIntyre; "Sinclair" is her partner's name and also a homage by author David George III to the actor's surname.)
Last edited:
Langella was uncredited for The Circle trilogy too, correct?
Lefty.
Yep.
"I can't wait to see homophobic fanboys spinning like the blades on the Enterprise's warp nacelles at the thought of Sulu belonging to my tribe."
I disagree. That's the quote. It's pretty obvious what the implications are here.
The Devil's advocate is neither easy nor lazy. It is how debaters stenghten their own arguments. It requires you to think from diverse points of view. I advise doing it more.
That homophopic fanboys will be upset? Sounds like a good call.
Who's point of view are you thinking from?
Which "homophobes" are you referring to, to be precise?
The quote stands on its own, and I will not argue it any further. additionally, the only strawman argument I find going on here is the one against the nameless "bigots" and "homophobes."
People have a right to disagree with the creative liberties taken by Simon Pegg, without having to be hit with a barrage of disrespectful labels like the ones mentioned above.
Agreed. This is a discussion forum. There is nothing wrong with healthy debate or dissenting opinion, so long as everyone remains respectful, and doesn't resort to cheap demagoguery.
And who would those be, to be exact?
George Takei, for example, as I mentioned earlier.
That's not your decision to make, though. If you feel something needs to be addressed, notify on the post and let the mods deal with it. Telling people to STFU will earn you a warning.
More often than not I find that when it's used in online debates —especially controversial ones— it's so the person can get away with saying something offensive and then when they're called it by others hide behind the devil's advocate excuse like it wasn't their actual opinion.
Fanboys who are homophobic. Seems cut and dry.
Can you summarize his position?
So your plan is to get posters to run down a list of people they consider homophobes on the forum and post it for you, risking an infraction? Where's Admiral Ackbar when you need him?
Look, if you want to pretend that there's no bigotry involved in the responses of a lot —not all— of the people who are up at arms about this, that's your business. It's not up to people to post a list of homophobes to justify pointing out that there are obviously some homophobic fans complaining, though.
And if you're not motivated by homophobia and haven't posted anything bigoted than obviously the accusation doesn't apply to you, so stop being so defensive about it.
Maybe no one asked George his opinion before the announcement?
George could be saying he doesn't like it, because even a sliver of dignity wasn't left behind, since the impression of a fraction of the decision was taken away from this actor despite that HE IS SULU!!!!!!!!!!
If the publicists or communications director had talked with George beforehand, they'd know that he was going to respond poorly, and begged him to please not to sh!t on their parade, or asked Takei if he wanted to write a novel or comic book set in the Prime Universe about Sulu's sexuality or/and general sexuality in the 23rd century.
George could be saying he doesn't like it, because even a sliver of dignity wasn't left behind, since the impression of a fraction of the decision was taken away from this actor despite that HE IS SULU!!!!!!!!!!
If the publicists or communications director had talked with George beforehand, they'd know that he was going to respond poorly, and begged him to please not to sh!t on their parade, or asked Takei if he wanted to write a novel or comic book set in the Prime Universe about Sulu's sexuality or/and general sexuality in the 23rd century.
So playing the Devil's advocate is lazy, but anecdotal evidence isn't? I'm sorry, I just can't seem to find any consistency to some of the arguments here.
Unless I or anyone else in this thread has said something homophobic or bigoted, I'd really appreciate those words being left out of the discussion. It's needless demagoguery, and it cheapens the discourse.
Cho and Lin informed him a year ago, IIRC.
Similar threads
