HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler

[jotap]

Well, why he cares or doesn't care is his business. It's really not anyone else's place to question.

I will say this to @jotap, though:

You keep adding new posts, but it's been a while since you've added anything new to the discussion. While we do know that:

• You don't approve of the Sulu character being gay in these movies
• You'd rather it had been a different, preferably new character instead
• You agree with George Takei (or at least you believe that you do)
• You think that giving the Sulu character this new bit of back story was a bad decision
• You think that this is being forced on you by someone
• You've decided because of all this that you're not going to watch the movie, or that you'll wait to see it when it comes out on DVD

While we do know all these things, merely saying them again and again isn't the same thing as participating in a discussion about it. Indeed, after the second or third time, it's pretty much spamming the forum and advertising your unwillingness to consider any other opinion or position. Now, I don't really want to give you a spamming warning, but I think everyone who's been paying any attention at all knows by now exactly where you stand on this, so you can stop repeating what you've already said many times before. Perhaps you might sit back for a while, read what other people are saying and consider the positions they're expressing, and maybe post again when you have something new to contribute to the conversation?

And use the Multi-Quote function, yeah. Click that "Quote" button on each of the posts to which you wish to reply, and then you can respond to them all in the same post. Much neater and less cluttered that way.

I m at work and on my phone.
This is just...to obvious for me to qualify what you just said.
Do not worry.If your intention it is to stop me participating and to give my opinion you made it. Congrats.

 

[BillJ]

You should ask yourself why does George Takei cares.

Because he was "Sulu", now someone else is "Sulu" and doing something more memorable than driving Kirk around.

 

[M'Sharak]

I m at work and on my phone.
This is just...to obvious for me to qualify what you just said.
Do not worry.If your intention it is to stop me participating and to give my opinion you made it. Congrats.

But that is not my intention at all, and there's no need for you to try to make this confrontational.

You are welcome to participate, but TrekBBS has a rule which discourages posting the same thing over and over. Once you've said a thing once or twice, further repetitions are unnecessary. Part of my job as forum moderator is to be sure that new members such as yourself understand the rules by which they agreed to abide in registering here. You may now consider yourself advised concerning that particular rule.

Go forth and participate freely... but without repeating yourself too many times.

 

[mlk]

jotap as a fellow who agrees with you and also new on this board I can say this, per my own experience. The mods here will use their mod rights, ie ban, you, warn you etc if they don't agree with you. The posters they agree with can post the most nonsensical, offtopic , repeating lines ever, and won't be touched. Just don't write anything that's against the mods opinions it will only end with you being BS warned for something that the others with the "correct" opionion also did but didn't get warned for. For example the user BillJ whom I argued with a lot, everyone knows what he stands for, his opinions etc etc, but since he has the correct opinion the Mods won't touch him, even though he basically would qualify for the exact same things they warn you for, espcially this line from the mod M'Sharak: "but I think everyone who's been paying any attention at all knows by now exactly where you stand on this, so you can stop repeating what you've already said many times before.". Anyway just take it from me and stop participating unless you got the correct opinion.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

jotap as a fellow who agrees with you and also new on this board I can say this, per my own experience. The mods here will use their mod rights, ie ban, you, warn you etc if they don't agree with you. The posters they agree with can post the most nonsensical, offtopic , repeating lines ever, and won't be touched. Just don't write anything that's against the mods opinions it will only end with you being BS warned for something that the others with the "correct" opionion also did but didn't get warned for.

Remember when I told you to stop arguing and bringing up your infraction in the public threads multiple times? Yeah, that earns you an infraction, which I'm sure you can add to your growing list of grievances against the biased mods. Self-fulfilling prophecy and all that.

ETA: Comments to PM.

 

[BillJ]

For example the user BillJ whom I argued with a lot, everyone knows what he stands for, his opinions etc etc, but since he has the correct opinion the Mods won't touch him...

I've had more infractions than you can count, including from M'Sharak.

 

[mlk]

Remember when I told you to stop arguing and bringing up your infraction in the public threads multiple times? Yeah, that earns you an infraction, which I'm sure you can add to your growing list of grievances against the biased mods. Self-fulfilling prophecy and all that.

Am I allowed to answer your question or will that be an infraction too?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Am I allowed to answer your question or will that be an infraction too?

I forgot to add "Comments to PM" this time (I just edited it in), so even though you were told to keep comments to PM in your previous infraction and were just given an infraction for arguing infractions publicly five minutes ago, I'll let this one slide.

We're required to post a public notification of an infraction in the thread so other posters can see it. You are not supposed to argue your infraction in the thread. You can PM the mod and discuss it.

Now, enough talking about it or you'll get another infraction. Is that clear? Don't stir up trouble by giving other posters "helpful" advice about the allegedly biased mods either.

 

[m.lp.ql.m]

FYI - John Cho on this whole gay Sulu thing:

[I worried] he would object to us taking that from his life and say, “Hey, I was a gay actor who created a straight character, and now you’re making him gay because I’ve come out of the closet?,” that we were just seeing him for his sexual orientation. So I thought that would be where he would object. ​

http://www.avclub.com/article/john-cho-representation-and-his-concerns-gay-sulu-239666

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Ugh, every time there's a new interview I have to gird my loins for the next round of bitter debate.

 

[M'Sharak]

FYI - John Cho on this whole gay Sulu thing:

[I worried] he would object to us taking that from his life and say, “Hey, I was a gay actor who created a straight character, and now you’re making him gay because I’ve come out of the closet?,” that we were just seeing him for his sexual orientation. So I thought that would be where he would object. ​

http://www.avclub.com/article/john-cho-representation-and-his-concerns-gay-sulu-239666

That's a good piece, and good thoughtful stuff from Cho.

 

[Zonker]

FYI - John Cho on this whole gay Sulu thing:

[I worried] he would object to us taking that from his life and say, “Hey, I was a gay actor who created a straight character, and now you’re making him gay because I’ve come out of the closet?,” that we were just seeing him for his sexual orientation. So I thought that would be where he would object. ​

http://www.avclub.com/article/john-cho-representation-and-his-concerns-gay-sulu-239666

This is really the only issue I have with making Sulu gay. Not that it's an old character, not that it's Sulu, just why it's Sulu. That being said I'm still happy with what we got.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

You should ask yourself why does George Takei cares.

George Takei isn't participating in this thread, and I would really like an honest answer to the question - if not from you, then at least from someone who's against this decision. This question has been repeated multiple times throughout this thread, it's a completely reasonable question, and I still haven't seen anyone actually explain why this particular change to a character is in any way worse than all the other major changes that have already been made in these movies.

You all keep repeating that it definitely doesn't have anything to do with the fact that this involves making a character gay, only with changing a character. But the only character change any of you is complaining about is the one that involves making a character gay (despite the fact that that is one of the smallest and least intrusive changes in this new universe).

 

[mlk]

George Takei isn't participating in this thread, and I would really like an honest answer to the question - if not from you, then at least from someone who's against this decision. This question has been repeated multiple times throughout this thread, it's a completely reasonable question, and I still haven't seen anyone actually explain why this particular change to a character is in any way worse than all the other major changes that have already been made in these movies.

You all keep repeating that it definitely doesn't have anything to do with the fact that this involves making a character gay, only with changing a character. But the only character change any of you is complaining about is the one that involves making a character gay (despite the fact that that is one of the smallest and least intrusive changes in this new universe).

It's because according to Roddenberry, Takei and thus for many of us, it changes a character that was straight, atleast according to the maker and creator, and it was settled in good, just because of the fact the actor is Gay.

It's a bad retcon, and the reason is because the actor is gay. A pretty shitty reason. Imagine they'd make Spock gay for the same reason? It also doesn't add anything to the character. I completely understand Takei, the little time Takei had to make the character his is all gone.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Massive changes are happening in Avengers comics that will not carry through to the movies, but Don Cheedle hasn't commented about his character's death, Mark Ruffalo has not commented about his characters death, Chris Evans hasn't commented about how his character turned into a 90 year old and then Hydra, Chris Hemsworth doesn't seem worried that he's not worthy, and Natalie Portman stole his hammer, and Tom hiddleston hasn't expressed an opinion on Loki's run for the White House in 2016.

(I don't read Black Widow. My Girlfriend does. I'll ask her if there's any hinky #### happening to Natasha at the House of Ideas that Scarlet should be worried about.)

Some actors are invested in their characters, others less.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

It's because according to Roddenberry, Takei and thus for many of us, it changes a character that was straight, atleast according to the maker and creator, and it was settled in good, just because of the fact the actor is Gay.

It's a bad retcon, and the reason is because the actor is gay. A pretty shitty reason. Imagine they'd make Spock gay for the same reason? It also doesn't add anything to the character. I completely understand Takei, the little time Takei had to make the character his is all gone.

So your actual problem here is not that Sulu is being changed, but that Sulu was chosen because of George Takei's orientation?

I really don't see how that makes any difference to the final product. If Sulu were gay because John Cho thought it would be a fun twist for his character, would that somehow be better, even if the movie scene were exactly the same?

As for adding to the character: 1) It doesn't have to. Being white didn't add anything to Khan's character, 2) in this case, it most definitely does add to the character. It shows his family life, which we've never really seen before, and 3) the character is not the only thing that's important - adding long overdue diversity to the franchise is also a good thing.

 

[Guy Gardener]

According to the comics, written by one of the producers, khan was not white. Doctors had surgically altered his appearance to hide him from the public, since his real face, even 200 years later, is too recognizable to be seen in public.

So, despite all evidence, NuKhan is still Asian.

 

[mlk]

No, I think they should keep the characters as they were out of respect to the original cast and crew who worked their asses off to make them and create them, and keep them alive, and basically letting these new actors and crew earn millions and millions of money while the originals had to slave at conventions for a decade for s*it money.

The whole Adding diversity(this magic word) argument is silly for me. They could have introduced a new character if the only reason for someones sexuality was diversity and not adding to the character/story.

So Will, your character Kirk was awesome, I watched you play him for 40 odd years, a real inspiration for us. So anyway in this new movie we decided that Kirk is a girl, yeah he was a girl all along, can you believe that? Anyway so she and Spock were secret lovers all along!

 

[Guy Gardener]

This is hilarious.

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2011/06/10/comic-book-legends-revealed-317/

Sulu used to be Black!

(Yes, you already knew that, so hush while the noobs do a snoopy dance.)

 

[{ Emilia }]

No, I think they should keep the characters as they were out of respect to the original cast and crew who worked their asses off to make them and create them, and keep them alive, and basically letting these new actors and crew earn millions and millions of money while the originals had to slave at conventions for a decade for s*it money.

Making Sulu gay is like the smallest change you can possibly imagine considering most of the other characters have changed in major ways. Making a character whose love life has never been important to the show gay is way less of a change than the major character changes the others went through.

I don't see you complaining endlessly about the changes to Kirk, Spock, Scotty or Uhura.