HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
No, not true, certain canon is assumed based by logical observations and such. Going by your logic, everyone in Game of Thrones are transvestites since it doesn't exist that they explicitly say they're straight.
Ok I just changed my mind due to Locutus mastering me in debate. You are all right and I am wrong. This is a great message board by the way. I want to say everyone here are amazing debaters. Once again I bend down. You were right all along BillJ
Picking Sulu as the Gay character is a great choice since it was NEVER established he was straight!
Picking Sulu as the Gay character is a great choice since it was NEVER established he was straight!
No I just changed my mind. BillJ and the mod was right all along. I was just being ignorant since i didn't know that.
It isn't about winning. I wanted to know what in canon supported your assertion that Sulu is straight. It was disappointing you couldn't answer that simple question.
I've been watching since 1975, nothing sticks out to me that makes Sulu seem straight or gay. Like I said in earlier comments, he was a blank slate as far as that particular question is concerned. If Roddenberry knew he was gay, then he may have been intentionally written that way so as to not make Takei feel uncomfortable on set. The by-product of that? We have the only character who is a blank slate in that regard. All in my opinion.
Fictional characters (particularly those in a franchise) can be changed, modified, aged, rewritten, etc.
There is no reason to adhere to a particular "vision."
There is no reason to adhere to a particular "vision."
Who gives a shit about canon?
It's a new universe and different times so I welcome some upgrading.
To give you another example I find it easy enough to look past the fact that the original series only features one female main cast member (as a glorified secretary) and is pretty sexist in general.
But with nuTrek it honestly irritates me that there's just one female character and that the idiotic producers figured it's a great idea to shove in a way to present both Uhura and Carol Marcus in underwear in completely gratuitous scenes.
I would've applauded them, had they pulled a Starbuck-like gender swap on one of the main characters. Hey, the time line is different and according to chaos theory a tiny change in one part of the galaxy can change stuff far away. So maybe a butterfly flying in slightly different direction because of something the Narada did, caused Chekov to be born a girl and not a boy.
As it is now we have just as many gay crew members as we have female crew members which is pretty damn hilarious (considering gay people are like 2-3% of the population and women are 50%). And just so that it's clear: I totally think having a gay character is a great thing. I'm not trying to criticize that at all.
Again: Who gives a shit about canon? Give me good stories and a diverse cast because anything else feels insanely antiquated to me. And seeing a sexist straight-dominated future would feel very irritating.
Having straight white dudes in the vast majority of roles just seems unrealistic and pulls me out of the setting.
I'd wager to guess the majority of star trek fans care about canon. Altough If I am wrong I hope I don't get banned.
And No It's not a new universe it's the exact same universe or did I miss that they are now in the mirror universe or something?
Canon is not the same as continuity, and inconsistency is far from the worst sin in storytelling.
Heck, if I thought that inconsistency in and of itself were a show-stopper, I wouldn't like Star Trek in the first place.
But that's neither here nor there with respect to gnu-Sulu, because it doesn't appear* that his sexual orientation will conflict with either previous canon or continuity.
* - I say doesn't appear instead of does not only because I haven't seen the film yet.
Heck, if I thought that inconsistency in and of itself were a show-stopper, I wouldn't like Star Trek in the first place.
But that's neither here nor there with respect to gnu-Sulu, because it doesn't appear* that his sexual orientation will conflict with either previous canon or continuity.
* - I say doesn't appear instead of does not only because I haven't seen the film yet.
I'd rather have good stories than mindless adherence to canon.
People don't always figure out their sexual orientation right away, sometimes due to confusion, sometimes due to pressure by family and their community. So someone like Sulu (or any other character) could be portrayed as straight and discover they aren't later in life, and it wouldn't really violate "canon".
Ever get the impression someone is being deliberately unreasonable or difficult so as to prolong the argument and, thus, make the argument about themselves? This thread alone has seen this acted out several times.
You figured me out!
Not you, silly.
I'm not sure what my frequent master debating has to do with anything in this thread, but I'm happy to be recognized by a colleague as esteemed as yourself, at least, according to your own description. You haven't backed it up with any actual debating, though, or even been a cunning linguist. You've just been stalling.
Kirk never did the horizontal mambo with anyone who, given the limitations of mid 1960's makeup and budgetry contstraints, wasn't clearly female. The in the original movies, only Carol Marcus was revealed as one of his previous flames in TWOK, with Catherine Hicks (Gillian, Whale woman) in The Voyage Home, and a passing reference to an Antonia in the Nexus during Generations.
I'm not sure the standard or otherwise nature of the "genitalia" on any of those green painted women in TOS is important. As far as Kirk was concerned, he was having heterosexual nookie, if indeed he had any at all. To say otherwise is just seeing things that aren't there, were never hinted at, and that just gives ammunition to people like Pegg.
In what should be a celebration of Star Trek's 50th anniversary, I find what Pegg has done and said, and all the consequences of his actions due to the way he went about doing what he did, to be pathetic, self serving, idiotic, and utterly crass. None of us should have to be here debating and arguing about this because it should've never have been allowed to happen in the first place. Pegg is someone who clearly needs to be kept on a very tight leash, and part of me blames Paramount for not keeping him under control. Justin Lin is also squarely to blame.
Similar threads
