Ah, yes, that Gay Agenda again! I just knew they were behind this!
Trust me, we're far too busy controlling the weather and earthquakes and such to have to worry about Hollywood too.
HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
Ah, yes, that Gay Agenda again! I just knew they were behind this!
Trust me, we're far too busy controlling the weather and earthquakes and such to have to worry about Hollywood too.
Maybe? Maybe not? But Star Trek had fifty years to address the issue, thirty years where gay people were appearing in other TV shows and movies. If Star Trek had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century... so be it.
What's the phrase people use now? Oh, right: WHOOSH!
Everything I said was intended in a neutral tone of voice, and I think that you and I are basically on the same side of this issue.
But now you're accusing me of things I never meant, never wrote, motivations I don't have, and furthermore you're telling that I'm not welcome to post because you weren't specifically talking to me.
I did not think you were attacking me before, but you sure are in the above post.
This is a public board, and if you want to have a conversation with a poster where nobody else is allowed to add a comment, may I recommend using PMs? Last I saw, this is a general discussion about nuSulu, I had an opinion to state, and I stated it. Your permission is not required.
That's a hell of lot of first person references for someone who understood that the discussion wasn't about you. If you understood that, why did you directly respond as if I was referring to you, and how am I supposed to know that you're not taking it personally when you use language that clearly indicates that you are?
You're free to comment on whatever post you want, and I never said otherwise. What I said was that you jumped into the middle of a discussion I was having with someone else, transposed comments I made that were specific to the content of his post onto yourself, and then proceeded to get defensive over something that had nothing to do with you.
Comment on the post all you want, but making strawman arguments to get offended over when I had a very specific post I was referencing is silly.
Strange...weird...so you think i must feel the same emotions, feel entertained with a story, (being that story a movie, a book or a tv show whatever.).between the love/romance of two man (or two girls for that matter) ? that i would feel between a man and a woman? the same emotions? its homophobic?
And for not feeling the same emotions i m against gay relationships? you re the one who discriminates, not me. if i don t felt connected to the characters i can not enjoy a story, a book..a movie.
I "know" Sulu for 40 years. This is a lack of respect to all the fans.
Just create another character...make it main, make it gay..that is not a problem.
Funny. I'm straight and been watching Star Trek for 40 years, and I don't feel the slight bit disrespected.
and i agree...do it. I applaud that.
Just do not make things forced..imposed...what they r doing with Sulu its forced. just that.
And you have the same right as i do, to feel that way.
So the conclusion that Timewalker should draw is that she is forbidden to use the word "I" when stating her comments. Got it.
The word "I" is not inappropriate when stating one's own views or actions.
If you're not sure what someone means, there is always the option of asking for clarification before launching into a lecture full of erroneous assumptions.
I originally quoted your words because I wanted to make clear what the context was that prompted my comment. It initially had nothing to do with you personally. You're the one that made it so.
Its funny because some people, criticise JJ so violently because of the reboot he made to the show...i was not one of them..in fact the first movie he made, that opening sequence..was a fantastic homage to the original show..those bips sounds, so familiar, give me the goosebumps
I never agree with those that accused him to adulterate star trek.
But this is different, this, is changing established characters.
For me its a big, big mistake.
I never agree with those that accused him to adulterate star trek.
But this is different, this, is changing established characters.
For me its a big, big mistake.
There is a problem there. I'm calling it "Carol Marcus" syndrome. Where if people bitch loudly enough, they will role back new characters to make people happy. A new gay character would get the internet in enough of an uproar that Paramount would quietly roll it back. Making it an already existing character makes far more of a statement that this is here to stay.
You don't speak for me. So, in a word, no.
So should we still have Uhura going around stating that she's frightened in dangerous situations because that is the way it was in the 1960's? Society has changed, Star Trek needs to change with it.
Maybe, maybe not, but it's definitely closed-minded. I'm gay, yet I'm fully capable of understanding love between two people. I have no problem enjoying and feeling the same emotions while watching a straight love story.
Well, I don't understand why the mere presence of gay characters would ruin a story for you, but no, of course you're not *required* to feel the same emotions or connections toward gay characters as you would toward straight ones if that's not what floats your boat. It would be better if you felt empathy for gay characters, but it's not an obligation.
This doesn't disrespect fans in the slightest. Fans don't own the character of Sulu in these films any more than George Takei does.
With Chekov probably disappearance of the next movie (unfortunately due to the death of the actor Anton)that could open a chance to create a new character, why not making that character gay? this is just an example of how they could do things.
This is an offense to George Takei in my opinion...i m not a bit admired that he is against this decision. Not a bit admired.
Please do things naturally
This is an offense to George Takei in my opinion...i m not a bit admired that he is against this decision. Not a bit admired.
Please do things naturally
You realize that filming wrapped on Beyond well before Yelchin's death?
Understanding love i agree with you.
To feel connected is another thing.
For me to respect someone i just need respect back. Each person is as it is.
Do not ask me to lie.
I have to like the characters, to feel connected to the characters to enjoy and feel entertained reading a book.
More than the plot, its the characters who made a successful story.
And this is not the subject. As i said i m not against it. i am against to change a established character.
I know ofc..that was only an example. That is why i think it is a bad decision. They could have add a new character, creativity it is not a problem i am sure. Things could be done well, naturally. Not feeling forced.
So they should have predicted that Anton Yelchin was going to die after filming ended and then decide to wait until the next film to replace his character with a gay one? Seems reasonable.
Similar threads
