HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I see what you're saying, but to be frank, I get incredible personal comfort from reconciling them.

Great! That's the beauty of this move.

You can decide retroactively that Sulu was gay all along... or not.

Outside of this message board, I think you would probably see most people's eyes glaze over if you even tried to explain to them that there is more than one Sulu. So I really think this conversation is just for us. And most likely, for future generations, Sulu will be gay.

I always disliked the biology versus choice debate, as I mentioned much higher up in this thread, because it should not matter whether it is hard-wired or a choice. As long as you are making a choice that doesn't harm anyone else, and being gay does not harm anyone else (much as some would like to think that it does), it should make no difference. If I decide to make out with a dude tomorrow just for the hell of it, in my case, that would most likely be a choice. But so what? It's no one else's business.

My position is, whatever makes someone gay, it makes no difference. Just be gay.

 

[borgboy]

As a gay man I can tell you I've never known a gay person who believed it was a choice. The only choice is to be honest or not. Now a bisexual may chose to have a same sex or opposite sex relationship, but they still are bi.
I've heard it said that if you think it's a choice, you may be considering it.
Otherwise, I find it strange that some straight people think they know more about being gay than gay people do.

 

[Nerys Myk]

As a gay man I can tell you I've never known a gay person who believed it was a choice. The only choice is to be honest or not. Now a bisexual may chose to have a same sex or opposite sex relationship, but they still are bi.
I've heard it said that if you think it's a choice, you may be considering it.
Otherwise, I find it strange that some straight people think they know more about being gay than gay people do.

Straightplaining?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Or, straightsplaining?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Or, straightsplaining?

that's better.

 

[BillJ]

Of course it's not a choice but I think he was trying to say that the people who call being gay a "lifestyle choice" aren't just wrong but also full of shit because there wouldn't even be anything wrong with such a choice anyway.

Again: Doesn't change the fact that it isn't a choice.

I'm not sure how much in life is truly a choice.

 

[Franklin]

Great! That's the beauty of this move.

You can decide retroactively that Sulu was gay all along... or not.

Outside of this message board, I think you would probably see most people's eyes glaze over if you even tried to explain to them that there is more than one Sulu. So I really think this conversation is just for us. And most likely, for future generations, Sulu will be gay.

I always disliked the biology versus choice debate, as I mentioned much higher up in this thread, because it should not matter whether it is hard-wired or a choice. As long as you are making a choice that doesn't harm anyone else, and being gay does not harm anyone else (much as some would like to think that it does), it should make no difference. If I decide to make out with a dude tomorrow just for the hell of it, in my case, that would most likely be a choice. But so what? It's no one else's business.

My position is, whatever makes someone gay, it makes no difference. Just be gay.

True. In a perfect world. Rights are rights, regardless. It should not matter, but "biology v. choice" does. I guess the thing is, I could just see some talking head or blogger saying for his or her advantage, "Look, even in progressive 'Star Trek' being gay is a choice because one Sulu is gay and the exact same Sulu in another universe isn't." I know I'm overthinking the importance of that -- probably. Then again, in today's charged and cock-eyed political environment, who knows?
Still, politically, rationalizing homosexuality as a choice down through history has helped gain support for "morals laws" that criminalized it (even sentencing men to death for it up until the1830s in the UK). It wasn't decriminalized in England and Wales until 1967, and even then, it was with strict conditions. If it is accepted as biology, the morality of it becomes moot -- it is innately human in some, and therefore natural -- so it's easier to defend against laws that are discriminatory or even worse, atrocities. It is not like "choosing" to smoke pot, hire a prostitute, gamble, or any other victimless crime that is a moral or social issue and regulated in some way.

Wow. Way to make Trek socially relevant, Mr. Pegg.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Wow. Way to make Trek socially relevant, Mr. Pegg.

These movies don't do social or relevant. I read it on the internet .

 

[Sector 7]

Not really. Bones was divorced and God knows what Scotty is up to.

I just watched "Wolf in the Fold" in which Scotty is smitten with the first murder victim... a female.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I just watched "Wolf in the Fold" in which Scotty is smitten with the first murder victim... a female.

Scotty's the poster child for unlucky in love.

 

[Guy Gardener]

We don't know when Jack really started to take over "just a little bit". It's altogether possible someone should have noticed that Scottie was chasing the wrong gender from usual, and suspected that had been possessed by a space ghost.

Meanwhile, after the fact, if Scotty had to deal with PTSD from remembering the urge to need to mutilate every woman in eyeshot, it's a likely reason to swear off that gender, even if he still wasn't interested in men.

For his retirement... Scottie was heading off to an old folkes planet with a young man named Franklin, who might have had daddy issues? Of course there's no reason to believe that Franklin was a boyfriend and not an Uber Driver, but that's besides the real point.

Old men turn the gravity down %30 before sex starts.

 

[Makarov]

So there's multiple suggestions here that those not in favor of a sulu rewrite would just be crying about tokenism as well, the implication here being that they don't want a gay character in trek and would be complaining in whatever way it comes, which isn't what George Takei was saying. I wish people could have a nuanced opinion about something without being forced into a with us or against us mentality... but of course no one reads past headlines.

 

[JeffinOakland]

So, basically, 1133 comments later, argument without end

 

[jotap]

We shall see the results. I think they are directed completely to the new generations that do not give a damn to continuity or the history and background of the characters.
And probably they are right. I m quite influenced..(biased?) for having almost born with Star Trek on my imagination.

 

[OtherGene]

When I first read that Sulu was going to be unveiled as gay during Beyond I immediately got it as a nod towards Gorgeous George and was pleased. Then I read that, in fact, Gorgeous George wasn't at all happy with the decision and then I wasn't sure what to think.

Since then I've seen the South Korean trailer which features a clip of Sulus' husband (and daughter) and now all I can think is "Who the hell is it playing him?"

I don't think it should've been announced the way it was. If I'd watched the film I think I'd have enjoyed it more getting the reference to Takei as the story was told. Obviously after release the news would've spread like any other plot point but I think that would've been a more natural way of it doing so. Using this plot point revelation this way it's as if they wanted to draw as much attention as possible to their movie.

Oh, hang on....

 

[Guy Gardener]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_money

The more pink money you gain, the more Red (Neck) money lose, and why do I think that the Red (Chinese) Money is a no go if Star Trek is seen to be promoting an unhealthy homosexualized agenda?

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...le-television-clampdown-xi-jinping-censorship

 

[BillJ]

I think they are directed completely to the new generations...

Of course they are. You don't stay in business without creating new customers for your product.

 

[mos6507]

Takei is right that Roddenberry probably didn't imagine Sulu to be gay?

I mean, yeah... Roddenberry created Trek in the 60s. There was no way they could've gotten an openly gay character in the series at the time, sadly.

There's no need for us to not update it a little. Whatever Roddenberry wanted the characters to be like shouldn't stand in the way of creating amazing stories with a modern and diverse cast today.

But is it possible to have a civil disagreement without it becoming a moral outrage? The Beyond cast is coming out one by one to throw George under the bus.

http://www.scmp.com/culture/film-tv...et-out-more-says-star-trek-action-heroine-zoe

Here is her analogy:

“It is an alternate universe and maybe Uhura is gay too and that’s why her and Spock maybe may not work. Is Nichelle Nichols going to come and insult the whole franchise?”

So by analogy, she's now accusing George of "insulting the franchise" as a whole by disagreeing with this creative move.

This PC blowback is way out of line.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But is it possible to have a civil disagreement without it becoming a moral outrage? The Beyond cast is coming out one by one to throw George under the bus.

http://www.scmp.com/culture/film-tv...et-out-more-says-star-trek-action-heroine-zoe

Here is her analogy:



So by analogy, she's now accusing George of "insulting the franchise" as a whole by disagreeing with this creative move.

This PC blowback is way out of line.

People expressing opinions is way out of line?!? You just said that you were in favor of civil disagreement.

 

[BillJ]

This PC blowback is way out of line.

It really isn't. This is a franchise that had fifty years to do something, anything on this front. They did nothing.