They both identify as male, that’s a gay relationship. It being the default relationship on their planet doesn’t change anything.
Spoilers 1st openly gay character.
- Thread starter steam235
- Start date
Nope
In what sense was it forced? The double standard for me lies in observations like the one you made right there.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you of being homophobic, it's clear you aren't, but there does tend to be a perception that any portrayal of homosexuality need somehow be politically driven, some kind of statement. Try a wee thought experiment and recast Sulu's "friend" as female. Would people have taken that as a forced endorsement of heterosexuality? Would the scene have drawn any comment at all?
The idea that such a portrayal is forced really only works if one takes hetero relationships as "the norm" and gay ones as being somehow "abnormal", something that should be drawn attention to and commented on when you see them. I get that what you are really talking about is tokenism but the sense that a fleeting glimpse of a gay couple is somehow a forced statement doesn't wash in light of the thousands of straight ones we accept without taking as political commentary.
The whole thing works best if two people hugging are taken as just that, two people hugging, without needing it to be a statement.
Spock/Uhura thing really bugged me. Sulu being gay was obviously fine.
From your link
"Previously, the actor had called the news “really unfortunate,” saying that the outing would have been a “twisting” of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry’s vision for the character in the popular ’60s television series."
He was happy with a gay character, but was not happy or enthused about writing Sulu as gay
Like I said I'm not trying to dominate the thread and I feel I've kinda posted a lot, seems a little rude so I don't wanna carry on.
But a little bit earlier I relayed my thoughts on the story where Pegg and Co. tried so hard to figure out "where to put the gay character" which to me sounds forced. And I also referred to the homosexual relationship of Jeri Hogarth in Jessica Jones and Bortis from the Orville as examples of it being written well. Where their relationships were actually apart of establishing their character and character traits that give us insight as to their interactions on the show and with the story. To me showcasing a gay couple just to say you put a gay couple in is no different than showcasing being a playboy as an excuse to show hot chicks in a show
Yeah, everyone knows that's Elton John.
Also from my link:
As in the problem wasn't Sulu being gay, he was disappointed at the lack of a new character altogether. The original comments had been taken out of context for controversy.
In either case my point still stands that my own take on Sulu had always been to perceive him as gay, so seeing that scene really didn't seem so jarring.
As for being forced, your answer still doesn't really cover how. Your perception is seemingly based on behind the scenes comments, not the film itself. To a viewer watching the film as presented without access to those sources or comments on SP's intentions, what is there in that scene which seems so out of place as to draw comment? You say there's difference between a well portrayed relationship and a tokenistic one, but this was neither, there was no portrayal at all to speak of, much less critically evaluate.
It was a fleeting glance which would have largely been forgotten as filler material had the couple been straight and therein lies the double standard:
Straight couple = generic background material
Gay couple = political statement
This
I want a show about space and ships and aliens. Dr Who had openly gay characters ten years ago, we've got an openly gay vicar participating in this years Strictly, and the world still turns.
I want interesting characters doing space stuff, whatever their persuasion. To be honest, I thought trek had already done openly gay characters, but I stopped paying attention at enterprise.
I want a show about space and ships and aliens. Dr Who had openly gay characters ten years ago, we've got an openly gay vicar participating in this years Strictly, and the world still turns.
I want interesting characters doing space stuff, whatever their persuasion. To be honest, I thought trek had already done openly gay characters, but I stopped paying attention at enterprise.
Spot I think I explained my issue well. Maybe you disagree with my point or opinion but I don't think anyone can suggest here I haven't been thorough in stating my opinion.
They put a gay character just to have one, there was no development for the character and it didn't make any sense or play out in the film at all. it didn't show case anything about the character other than look, the character is gay. I also cited examples of where the relationship was important to expanding the character and how, what they showed, played out in the rest of said show, episode or film.
And I am not taking Takai's comments out of context at all.
He didn't think Sulu should be gay and that they should have written in a character who was.
They put a gay character just to have one, there was no development for the character and it didn't make any sense or play out in the film at all. it didn't show case anything about the character other than look, the character is gay. I also cited examples of where the relationship was important to expanding the character and how, what they showed, played out in the rest of said show, episode or film.
And I am not taking Takai's comments out of context at all.
He didn't think Sulu should be gay and that they should have written in a character who was.
Does he know that?
While I agree that it's refreshing that the show didn't already include a romantic angle, I can't say that I want that to stay that way. Personally, I want romance to be very much a part of this show.
I've always been somewhat puzzled by this aspect of Trek fandom. Why do so many folks who are enthused about stories that routinely embrace diversity, tolerance, acceptance of variously differing races, species and cultures at the same time harbor such narrow views? Am I missing something here or what?
It's not race. It's a standard. Trek should be able to do better.
I think trek "getting to it when they get to it" makes sense.
I mean the story telling has been on target for the story, where and why do you suggest they put a gay character?
this is what I'm talking about, putting in a gay character just to put one in, as opposed to writing to the story.
I mean the story telling has been on target for the story, where and why do you suggest they put a gay character?
this is what I'm talking about, putting in a gay character just to put one in, as opposed to writing to the story.
Only been 50 years. They'll get there soon
The old A'TP'ers would surely bristle at this obvious slighting of their constant rant against T/T all those years ago in the Ent forum. How soon we forget.
So, again, how would it be different if the couple were straight? If you simply watch that film without access to backstage sources why is that scene noteworthy except for the fact the couple are gay? Why does it look forced any more than if they were straight? You haven't explained that at all, much less "well".
If all that scene does is declare "look this character is gay" then the dozens of scenes with straight couples do nothing more than declare those characters are straight. Why comment on one and not the other?
Yes, but Takei has made it clear his original comments were taken out of context by the press. No one has mentioned how you took them.
Lt. Stamets' husband (Doctor Hugh Culber) serves aboard the Discovery (as its CMO); we just haven't met him yet.
Similar threads
- Locked
