Eh?
Maybe you should take a step back and not be so easily angered. Saldana's reply seemed like a "civil disagreement".
HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
Eh?
Maybe you should take a step back and not be so easily angered. Saldana's reply seemed like a "civil disagreement".
Wildly shaken fists can scare away the gay.
Somebugger is covering their ass, or 20 years ago, a very successful whopper was sold to us nerds.
Hardly. You have to remember this was supposedly done as an homage to George. For it to devolve into a rhetorical shooting-gallery of one Beyond crewmember throwing barbs at him after another is rather sad. They aren't saying he has a right to his opinion. They are expressing moral outrage over his opinion. In other words, he's simply not entitled to disagree without it signifying that there's somehow something "wrong" with him.
They're disagreeing with him.
Seems like a perfectly normal thing to do in a discourse.
I don't see any name-calling or bad faith.
The Trek movies have introduced Will Decker and Ilia (intended to be ongoing characters in "Phase II" but killed off), Xon (never used), Saavik (lasted 2.5 movies and two actors), David Marcus (rumoured to be a spin-off character with Saavik; lasted 2 movies and killed off), Valeris (a rewritten Saavik III, revealed as traitor) and Hawk (Borgified in his first movie). Just as well none of these new characters were "the new gay one".
No, the Hawk-is-gay rumour was definitely a Usenet and GENie meme of the day. It dates back to faux script pages, supposedly of "Generations", which grafted scenes from David Gerrold's "Blood and Fire" into actual lines from "Generations". Then the same Internet rumour appeared when "First Contact" was in pre-production.
I believe the interview with Neal McDonough was in "Starlog", IIRC. He was shocked to be asked by a reporter if he played the character as gay because it was never explained to him to play the role with that trait in mind. However, authors Michael A Martin and Andy Mangels turned the rumour on its own ear by writing Hawk as gay in the "First Contact" prequel novel, "TNG: Section 31: Rogue".
Wildly shaken fists can scare away the gay.
Somebugger is covering their ass, or 20 years ago, a very successful whopper was sold to us nerds.
No, the Hawk-is-gay rumour was definitely a Usenet and GENie meme of the day. It dates back to faux script pages, supposedly of "Generations", which grafted scenes from David Gerrold's "Blood and Fire" into actual lines from "Generations". Then the same Internet rumour appeared when "First Contact" was in pre-production.
I believe the interview with Neal McDonough was in "Starlog", IIRC. He was shocked to be asked by a reporter if he played the character as gay because it was never explained to him to play the role with that trait in mind. However, authors Michael A Martin and Andy Mangels turned the rumour on its own ear by writing Hawk as gay in the "First Contact" prequel novel, "TNG: Section 31: Rogue".
Last edited:
Wow. What an arrogant thing for her to say. In case people here aren't bothering to read the article, she opines that Takei "ought to get out more" and "“I think that he’s still too personally attached to this character that he created and I think that he needs to find that line between his personal life and this character.”
Takei is more than twice her age, has lived through things that she never did (internment camp during WWII, for example), had to hide part of his own identity in order to keep on working... and HE "needs to get out more"???
Yes, he's attached to Original Sulu, and he's entitled to feel that way. He strove to make Sulu a well-rounded, dynamic character, and the fact that so many people still like both him and his version of Sulu after nearly 50 years is a testament to his continued interest in this character.
Her attitude is obnoxious. He didn't insult the whole nuTrek franchise. He just said that he didn't think his rebooted character should be gay, because that's not how Original Sulu was presented, and that he would rather that Roddenberry's view of Star Trek be honored and not himself. How does that translate to insulting the whole franchise?
Her opinions were not expressed in a civil way. She basically said that his views about a character he played are not relevant, even though his RL sexual orientation was used as the excuse for making the rebooted character gay as well.People expressing opinions is way out of line?!? You just said that you were in favor of civil disagreement.
Re-read it. It's not civil.
You don't have to call someone a name to be obnoxious.
I find it insulting to assume that somebody who does not agree with your assessment simply doesn't have good reading comprehension. Instead of giving actual reasons and explanations you simply tell me to "re-read it" because apparently I failed to understand it the first time?
That wasn't nice, @Timewalker. It was dismissive and patronizing. I find that disappointing and didn't expect this from you.
I am not interested in a conversation if you refuse to argue in good faith. Because that is also part of a civil discourse. I genuinely hope you will reconsider.
I, on the other hand, respect your opinion on the matter. I don't doubt your reading comprehension and I'm not going to dismissively tell you to read it again because disagreement is part of discourse. And I do respectfully disagree. I wish you would show the same respect and courtesy.
I do find it ironic that you judge Saldana's statement as "not civil" given what you just did to me.
Last edited:
Those are the writers words and interpretation.
This is her actual quote.
Well, I believe her opinions were expressed in a civil way.
And, I believe it is not accurate to say that Takei's sexual orientation was "the excuse" for making nu-Sulu gay. There was nothing in making nu-Sulu gay that needed excusing. It was a creative choice to introduce greater expressions of diversity into the main cast. At most, Takei's sexual orientation influenced the choice to make it nu-Sulu who is revealed as gay. It's not like Takei is the only gay person either in the audience or associated with Star Trek.
I understand perfectly the feelings of George Takei about this matter.
The fact is, as i said before, present fans of Star Trek do not care about his character background history.
In my time i had TV shows, comics and little more..i grow up with Star Trek ,Space 1999 etc..
Now a days if i ask someone about Sulu most of the people doesn t know who it is. Even after watching the two last movies.
People do not care.
The fact is, as i said before, present fans of Star Trek do not care about his character background history.
In my time i had TV shows, comics and little more..i grow up with Star Trek ,Space 1999 etc..
Now a days if i ask someone about Sulu most of the people doesn t know who it is. Even after watching the two last movies.
People do not care.
but i think it will be hilarious if and when he will make any thoughts about this matter.
She seems incredibly full of herself.
How old do you think "present fans" are? Trust me, many of us are fans of the series going back to the 60's ad 70's. And we don't have the problems with this that you do.
based on that one quote?
Talk about assumptions.
Did you read the entire article? I didn't ask if you understood it. I did not say anything about your "reading comprehension." I suggested that you re-read it, as perhaps you missed the parts where Saldana comes off as extremely arrogant and, as someone has said upthread, "full of herself."
Everything I say is in good faith. It's not my problem if others refuse to accept it as such. You're well aware by now that I don't have a high opinion of nuTrek at the best of times. Saldana's nose-in-the-air attitude has just lowered my opinion of nuTrek even further.
Yes, I'm quite aware of how much you respect my opinions when it comes to nuTrek.
Why would the writer make up those words and put them into quotation marks if she didn't say them? It seems an odd interpretation for a writer to make if there wasn't something in her own words that at least implied that this is her attitude.
It's quite a leap from "Takei is attached to his character" to "Takei needs to get out more."
Considering everything he's done in his life, this is a really rude thing to say - no matter who says it.
That part wasn't in quotes.
Writers and editors using catchy headlines to attract readers is not new
Again I am saddened by your dismissive approach.
I have read her entire statement, I understood all the words, and I found it pretty civil. I merely disagree with you.
Simply telling me to "re-read it" was dismissive and insulting.
I find that regrettable and expected more from you. I also find it regrettable that you aren't willing to see that it was pretty rude to just go "re-read it", like I simply didn't understand or read it properly the first time. Instead of giving your actual reasons.
Do tell, I am genuinely curious to hear that.
Also, selectively quoting someone can totally change the context of their remarks, so a quotation isn't necessary what was being said if taken out of context.
{ Emilia }, you and I are both aware that you are attempting to bait me, and I'm not taking it.
If you want to argue about it, let's take it to PM. I won't do it here.
Similar threads
