You can bring attention to a subject without retconning an existing established character to do it. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby cranked out how many characters that were new at the time and are now iconic? Why can't the writers and creators of today do the same? Are they that lacking in imagination?
You'll have to ask them next time you see them. But it's a rehash world out there and everything else is being forced to adapt. In these cases, it's not that bad because they advocate 'what if' scenarios on relevant thought processes. What if WW or KT Sulu were TRIBBLE? Does that diminish them as heroes?
You'll have to ask them next time you see them. But it's a rehash world out there and everything else is being forced to adapt. In these cases, it's not that bad because they advocate 'what if' scenarios on relevant thought processes. What if WW or KT Sulu were ****? Does that diminish them as heroes?
Of course it doesn't diminish them as heroes. However, I do see it as diminishing the subject they're trying to advance. You don't need Wonder Woman to be a **** or KT Sulu to be g.ay in order to advance LGBT rights issues IMO.
Use some imagination is all I'm suggesting. There has to be literally millions of great character ideas out there who will be the next Iron Man or Superman.
You'll have to ask them next time you see them. But it's a rehash world out there and everything else is being forced to adapt. In these cases, it's not that bad because they advocate 'what if' scenarios on relevant thought processes. What if WW or KT Sulu were ****? Does that diminish them as heroes?
Of course it doesn't diminish them as heroes. However, I do see it as diminishing the subject they're trying to advance. You don't need Wonder Woman to be a **** or KT Sulu to be g.ay in order to advance LGBT rights issues IMO.
Or maybe it's done solely to advance the backstory of a character and not an agenda.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I'm not an expert in Hollywood, but I know writers, maybe even producer/writers, struggle everyday to get their stuff even read by production execs. I wouldn't be surprised if there were several original TRIBBLE superhero scripts shot down over the years because they were unfamiliar characters or too high a risk.
I can only see this and KT Sulu as a good thing because there's still some sense of stigma about homosexuality for some people in general. I prefer to support these, and articles about them, rather than shut them down because they're providing visibility on equality. Maybe WW was obvious, but no one was talking about it.
You can bring attention to a subject without retconning an existing established character to do it. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby cranked out how many characters that were new at the time and are now iconic? Why can't the writers and creators of today do the same? Are they that lacking in imagination?
How many of their creations would seem unique and original TODAY?
Realistically it's unfair to compare those who DEFINED superhero comics with those who came later.
Or maybe it's done solely to advance the backstory of a character and not an agenda.
Impossible. Gays cannot be gays without expanding their evil TRIBBLE plans. Did you know that a prime TRIBBLE goal is to take away marriage from straight people? And just yesterday I feel a TRIBBLE got treated even more equal than the average straight person! Maniacal laugh! Maniacal laugh!
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Or maybe it's done solely to advance the backstory of a character and not an agenda.
I believe that's B.S. in both cases.
Honestly, whenever someone feels compelled to say 'Oh, oh, I did it! I did it!' with regards to thing like this... it's a fair bet anyone saying it's not intended as PR (either straight-up or via controversy) is being quite a bit naive. Marcus and Valoreah have a point there.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Or maybe it's done solely to advance the backstory of a character and not an agenda.
Impossible. **** cannot be **** without expanding their evil **** plans. Did you know that a prime **** goal is to take away marriage from straight people? And just yesterday I feel a **** got treated even more equal than the average straight person! Maniacal laugh! Maniacal laugh!
The forum's censorship just made that 10 times funnier .
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I can only see this and KT Sulu as a good thing because there's still some sense of stigma about homosexuality for some people in general. I prefer to support these, and articles about them, rather than shut them down because they're providing visibility on equality. Maybe WW was obvious, but no one was talking about it.
You can bring attention to a subject without retconning an existing established character to do it. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby cranked out how many characters that were new at the time and are now iconic? Why can't the writers and creators of today do the same? Are they that lacking in imagination?
Maybe it is like for many musicians - people always want to hear the old hits, many ignore the new stuff?
If Star Trek is any indication, the existing fandom can be the biggest hurdle to actually create something new. (This should be a warning to all those remake and franchise fanatics in Hollywood... Or not, maybe you can actually deliver more of the same and still make money.)
Or maybe it's done solely to advance the backstory of a character and not an agenda.
Impossible. **** cannot be **** without expanding their evil **** plans. Did you know that a prime **** goal is to take away marriage from straight people? And just yesterday I feel a **** got treated even more equal than the average straight person! Maniacal laugh! Maniacal laugh!
It was bad enough when all those foreigners were coming for our women, but now our own women are coming for our women, too!!!11oneoneeleven
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Maybe it is like for many musicians - people always want to hear the old hits, many ignore the new stuff?
Interesting and possible. However, when does old just become old? Music, like anything else progresses, otherwise it stagnates and dies.
You've just made our point for us. If writers don't do new things with characters, including developing on their sexuality (again, just because Wonder Woman is attracted to women doesn't mean she isn't attracted to men anymore!), or changing up love interests, to go back to my Spider-Man example, then those characters stagnate and die.
As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.
Alternatively, the writers can use some of that talent they supposedly have and create new characters. I don't believe times changing is an excuse to be revisionist.
And then they get accused of creating token characters to cater to the "SJW" crowd. Oh, and of letting the existing characters "stagnate". You just can't win on this front - some folks scream about how they want to read something new, then when you give them something new they complain about it.
On a personal level, I'd rather see a token character, than retcon an existing one to cater to SJWs...
Example: Captain Jack Harkness.
In Empty Child, he was shown as flirting with men and women. In (I forget the episode name) he flirted with robots. In another episode (when he was reunited with the Doctor (as the 10th Doctor)) he flirted with a humanoid/insectoid alien... In short, he flirted with everyone and anything. In Miracle Day, he was strictly depicted as being g.ay...
Barrowman once said in interview that a difference between him and Jack was "I'm [Barrowman] g.ay, he[Jack]'s not..."
A massively popular and much-loved character, was retconned away from one of the very qualities which made him lovable!
Same with making KT Sulu g.ay (against George Takei's request) If they had to incoude a reference to homosexuality because it was plot-relevant, rather than just a tired attempt 'to be hip', I'd much rather they had created a new character than pull that trick on an established one.
IMHO, there's a difference between 'revealing new information about a character', such as Worf having accidentally killed another boy when playing soccer, than 'revealing 'new' information about a character' such as making KT Sulu g.ay and in a relationship no one had ever heard of before.
There's a certain level of respect and obligation when working with someone else's characters, which frankly, they failed to do with KT Sulu...
And to bring it back on topic, yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense that Wonder Woman has had same-sex encounters... The point, or rather non-point the writers should be making, should be "And?? So what??" and down-playing it, not being "We made Wonder Woman G.ay!" to draw attention to another DC future-flop which has 'trying too hard' written all over it (like every other POS movie they've put out since Man of Steel...) All the time hacks can't use g.ay characters without needlessly drawing attention to that as an advertising point, there never will be mainstream acceptance of g.ay people or g.ay rights, because it will atill be being treated as different, and needing differential status, than simply being a 'so what?' notion...
Why does everyone go nuts about KT Sulu? It was barely noticeable! If you happened to blink once during that scene, you'd have missed it! It's not like it was right in our faces! I thought they handled it in a very respectful way by making it a very simple scene without making a big deal out of it. The only reason people are making a big deal out of it is because Paramount made a big deal out of it before the film launched.
I'm not making a big deal out of it, I'm using it as an example of i) unnecessarily retconning a character, and ii) releasing the point to mass media to try and generate hype. You answered your question in your last sentence
Since Sulu's sexual preference was never overtly stated; how is this a retcon? As for George Takei objecting - come on, the man will do anything for a headline these days.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.
Alternatively, the writers can use some of that talent they supposedly have and create new characters. I don't believe times changing is an excuse to be revisionist.
And then they get accused of creating token characters to cater to the "SJW" crowd. Oh, and of letting the existing characters "stagnate". You just can't win on this front - some folks scream about how they want to read something new, then when you give them something new they complain about it.
On a personal level, I'd rather see a token character, than retcon an existing one to cater to SJWs...
Example: Captain Jack Harkness.
In Empty Child, he was shown as flirting with men and women. In (I forget the episode name) he flirted with robots. In another episode (when he was reunited with the Doctor (as the 10th Doctor)) he flirted with a humanoid/insectoid alien... In short, he flirted with everyone and anything. In Miracle Day, he was strictly depicted as being g.ay...
Barrowman once said in interview that a difference between him and Jack was "I'm [Barrowman] g.ay, he[Jack]'s not..."
A massively popular and much-loved character, was retconned away from one of the very qualities which made him lovable!
Same with making KT Sulu g.ay (against George Takei's request) If they had to incoude a reference to homosexuality because it was plot-relevant, rather than just a tired attempt 'to be hip', I'd much rather they had created a new character than pull that trick on an established one.
IMHO, there's a difference between 'revealing new information about a character', such as Worf having accidentally killed another boy when playing soccer, than 'revealing 'new' information about a character' such as making KT Sulu g.ay and in a relationship no one had ever heard of before.
There's a certain level of respect and obligation when working with someone else's characters, which frankly, they failed to do with KT Sulu...
And to bring it back on topic, yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense that Wonder Woman has had same-sex encounters... The point, or rather non-point the writers should be making, should be "And?? So what??" and down-playing it, not being "We made Wonder Woman G.ay!" to draw attention to another DC future-flop which has 'trying too hard' written all over it (like every other POS movie they've put out since Man of Steel...) All the time hacks can't use g.ay characters without needlessly drawing attention to that as an advertising point, there never will be mainstream acceptance of g.ay people or g.ay rights, because it will atill be being treated as different, and needing differential status, than simply being a 'so what?' notion...
Why does everyone go nuts about KT Sulu? It was barely noticeable! If you happened to blink once during that scene, you'd have missed it! It's not like it was right in our faces! I thought they handled it in a very respectful way by making it a very simple scene without making a big deal out of it. The only reason people are making a big deal out of it is because Paramount made a big deal out of it before the film launched.
I'm not making a big deal out of it, I'm using it as an example of i) unnecessarily retconning a character, and ii) releasing the point to mass media to try and generate hype. You answered your question in your last sentence
Since Sulu's sexual preference was never overtly stated; how is this a retcon?
Don't split hairs, it's a retcon and you know it -- Sulu was written as straight, and George Takei played him that way. It was never explicitly explained in canon presentation, so personal testimony of the actor and writer provides the information instead. If the KT is an alternate universe, and nothing which happens there affects the PrimeVerse in any way, then KT Sulu being g.ay, doesn't impact the sexuality of SuluPrime... As for 'what means SuluPrime is straight though?' Statistics. Statistically speaking, someone is more likely to be straight than g.ay, so without that 'overt stating' which you mention, logic says go with the statistical likelihood -- heterosexuality -- over the statistical unlikelihood -- homosexuality. (and just to point out again, Gene and George have already stated which is the case...) The fate of Michael Douglas' character in Basic Instinct was left unclear, but in an interview, when asked, Sharon Stone made a stabbing motion' indicating that the character was dead. And in Basic Instinct 2, he was dead... Actor testimonial takes over where canon leaves off, or never states, and is as close to 'expert testimonial' as possible in such matters...
As for George Takei objecting - come on, the man will do anything for a headline these days.
For sure. Doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about on this very specific matted though, does it... It also doesn't mean that what he said 'about them contacting him about it and saying that they wanted to do it to honor him' was a lie... Nor does it make it a lie that he said that he didn't want to be 'honored' in that way...
To go back to Basic Instinct as another example: Sharon never knew that Verhoeven had an unattended locked-off camera pointing at the spot where her vag was going to be on the chair. When she went onto that set, she just thought it was set dressing, and paid it no heed. When she then saw the released movie with the vag shot, she went ballistic, and never worked with Verhoeven again (who started using Elisabeth Shue instead...) So yeah, actors have the right to have their feelings taken into account, their wishes and opinions respected, and in instances like these, given benefit of the doubt until definitely proved as lies (which in these cases, they aren't)
As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.
Alternatively, the writers can use some of that talent they supposedly have and create new characters. I don't believe times changing is an excuse to be revisionist.
And then they get accused of creating token characters to cater to the "SJW" crowd. Oh, and of letting the existing characters "stagnate". You just can't win on this front - some folks scream about how they want to read something new, then when you give them something new they complain about it.
On a personal level, I'd rather see a token character, than retcon an existing one to cater to SJWs...
Example: Captain Jack Harkness.
In Empty Child, he was shown as flirting with men and women. In (I forget the episode name) he flirted with robots. In another episode (when he was reunited with the Doctor (as the 10th Doctor)) he flirted with a humanoid/insectoid alien... In short, he flirted with everyone and anything. In Miracle Day, he was strictly depicted as being g.ay...
Barrowman once said in interview that a difference between him and Jack was "I'm [Barrowman] g.ay, he[Jack]'s not..."
A massively popular and much-loved character, was retconned away from one of the very qualities which made him lovable!
Same with making KT Sulu g.ay (against George Takei's request) If they had to incoude a reference to homosexuality because it was plot-relevant, rather than just a tired attempt 'to be hip', I'd much rather they had created a new character than pull that trick on an established one.
IMHO, there's a difference between 'revealing new information about a character', such as Worf having accidentally killed another boy when playing soccer, than 'revealing 'new' information about a character' such as making KT Sulu g.ay and in a relationship no one had ever heard of before.
There's a certain level of respect and obligation when working with someone else's characters, which frankly, they failed to do with KT Sulu...
And to bring it back on topic, yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense that Wonder Woman has had same-sex encounters... The point, or rather non-point the writers should be making, should be "And?? So what??" and down-playing it, not being "We made Wonder Woman G.ay!" to draw attention to another DC future-flop which has 'trying too hard' written all over it (like every other POS movie they've put out since Man of Steel...) All the time hacks can't use g.ay characters without needlessly drawing attention to that as an advertising point, there never will be mainstream acceptance of g.ay people or g.ay rights, because it will atill be being treated as different, and needing differential status, than simply being a 'so what?' notion...
Why does everyone go nuts about KT Sulu? It was barely noticeable! If you happened to blink once during that scene, you'd have missed it! It's not like it was right in our faces! I thought they handled it in a very respectful way by making it a very simple scene without making a big deal out of it. The only reason people are making a big deal out of it is because Paramount made a big deal out of it before the film launched.
I'm not making a big deal out of it, I'm using it as an example of i) unnecessarily retconning a character, and ii) releasing the point to mass media to try and generate hype. You answered your question in your last sentence
Since Sulu's sexual preference was never overtly stated; how is this a retcon?
Don't split hairs, it's a retcon and you know it -- Sulu was written as straight, and George Takei played him that way. It was never explicitly explained in canon presentation, so personal testimony of the actor and writer provides the information instead. If the KT is an alternate universe, and nothing which happens there affects the PrimeVerse in any way, then KT Sulu being g.ay, doesn't impact the sexuality of SuluPrime... As for 'what means SuluPrime is straight though?' Statistics. Statistically speaking, someone is more likely to be straight than g.ay, so without that 'overt stating' which you mention, logic says go with the statistical likelihood -- heterosexuality -- over the statistical unlikelihood -- homosexuality. (and just to point out again, Gene and George have already stated which is the case...) The fate of Michael Douglas' character in Basic Instinct was left unclear, but in an interview, when asked, Sharon Stone made a stabbing motion' indicating that the character was dead. And in Basic Instinct 2, he was dead... Actor testimonial takes over where canon leaves off, or never states, and is as close to 'expert testimonial' as possible in such matters...
As for George Takei objecting - come on, the man will do anything for a headline these days.
For sure. Doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about on this very specific matted though, does it... It also doesn't mean that what he said 'about them contacting him about it and saying that they wanted to do it to honor him' was a lie... Nor does it make it a lie that he said that he didn't want to be 'honored' in that way...
To go back to Basic Instinct as another example: Sharon never knew that Verhoeven had an unattended locked-off camera pointing at the spot where her vag was going to be on the chair. When she went onto that set, she just thought it was set dressing, and paid it no heed. When she then saw the released movie with the vag shot, she went ballistic, and never worked with Verhoeven again (who started using Elisabeth Shue instead...) So yeah, actors have the right to have their feelings taken into account, their wishes and opinions respected, and in instances like these, given benefit of the doubt until definitely proved as lies (which in these cases, they aren't)
Statistically, I'm more likely to be Chinese than British. Just because there happen to be more straight people than homosexuals doesn't mean a character can't be homosexual. Anyone who thinks statistics are an indicator for individuals needs to stop looking at graphs for a while.
As the writers of what is in effect Star Trek Canon, the team behind 'the Kelvin films reserve the right to override 'soft-canon' (which Takei and Gene's statements are, at best, according to Roddenbury's own rules). TNG retconned the warp scale and the trans warp drive. Let's all go hate on TNG, shall we?
As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.
Alternatively, the writers can use some of that talent they supposedly have and create new characters. I don't believe times changing is an excuse to be revisionist.
And then they get accused of creating token characters to cater to the "SJW" crowd. Oh, and of letting the existing characters "stagnate". You just can't win on this front - some folks scream about how they want to read something new, then when you give them something new they complain about it.
On a personal level, I'd rather see a token character, than retcon an existing one to cater to SJWs...
Example: Captain Jack Harkness.
In Empty Child, he was shown as flirting with men and women. In (I forget the episode name) he flirted with robots. In another episode (when he was reunited with the Doctor (as the 10th Doctor)) he flirted with a humanoid/insectoid alien... In short, he flirted with everyone and anything. In Miracle Day, he was strictly depicted as being g.ay...
Barrowman once said in interview that a difference between him and Jack was "I'm [Barrowman] g.ay, he[Jack]'s not..."
A massively popular and much-loved character, was retconned away from one of the very qualities which made him lovable!
Same with making KT Sulu g.ay (against George Takei's request) If they had to incoude a reference to homosexuality because it was plot-relevant, rather than just a tired attempt 'to be hip', I'd much rather they had created a new character than pull that trick on an established one.
IMHO, there's a difference between 'revealing new information about a character', such as Worf having accidentally killed another boy when playing soccer, than 'revealing 'new' information about a character' such as making KT Sulu g.ay and in a relationship no one had ever heard of before.
There's a certain level of respect and obligation when working with someone else's characters, which frankly, they failed to do with KT Sulu...
And to bring it back on topic, yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense that Wonder Woman has had same-sex encounters... The point, or rather non-point the writers should be making, should be "And?? So what??" and down-playing it, not being "We made Wonder Woman G.ay!" to draw attention to another DC future-flop which has 'trying too hard' written all over it (like every other POS movie they've put out since Man of Steel...) All the time hacks can't use g.ay characters without needlessly drawing attention to that as an advertising point, there never will be mainstream acceptance of g.ay people or g.ay rights, because it will atill be being treated as different, and needing differential status, than simply being a 'so what?' notion...
Why does everyone go nuts about KT Sulu? It was barely noticeable! If you happened to blink once during that scene, you'd have missed it! It's not like it was right in our faces! I thought they handled it in a very respectful way by making it a very simple scene without making a big deal out of it. The only reason people are making a big deal out of it is because Paramount made a big deal out of it before the film launched.
I'm not making a big deal out of it, I'm using it as an example of i) unnecessarily retconning a character, and ii) releasing the point to mass media to try and generate hype. You answered your question in your last sentence
Since Sulu's sexual preference was never overtly stated; how is this a retcon?
Don't split hairs, it's a retcon and you know it -- Sulu was written as straight, and George Takei played him that way. It was never explicitly explained in canon presentation, so personal testimony of the actor and writer provides the information instead. If the KT is an alternate universe, and nothing which happens there affects the PrimeVerse in any way, then KT Sulu being g.ay, doesn't impact the sexuality of SuluPrime... As for 'what means SuluPrime is straight though?' Statistics. Statistically speaking, someone is more likely to be straight than g.ay, so without that 'overt stating' which you mention, logic says go with the statistical likelihood -- heterosexuality -- over the statistical unlikelihood -- homosexuality. (and just to point out again, Gene and George have already stated which is the case...) The fate of Michael Douglas' character in Basic Instinct was left unclear, but in an interview, when asked, Sharon Stone made a stabbing motion' indicating that the character was dead. And in Basic Instinct 2, he was dead... Actor testimonial takes over where canon leaves off, or never states, and is as close to 'expert testimonial' as possible in such matters...
As for George Takei objecting - come on, the man will do anything for a headline these days.
For sure. Doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about on this very specific matted though, does it... It also doesn't mean that what he said 'about them contacting him about it and saying that they wanted to do it to honor him' was a lie... Nor does it make it a lie that he said that he didn't want to be 'honored' in that way...
To go back to Basic Instinct as another example: Sharon never knew that Verhoeven had an unattended locked-off camera pointing at the spot where her vag was going to be on the chair. When she went onto that set, she just thought it was set dressing, and paid it no heed. When she then saw the released movie with the vag shot, she went ballistic, and never worked with Verhoeven again (who started using Elisabeth Shue instead...) So yeah, actors have the right to have their feelings taken into account, their wishes and opinions respected, and in instances like these, given benefit of the doubt until definitely proved as lies (which in these cases, they aren't)
Statistically, I'm more likely to be Chinese than British. Just because there happen to be more straight people than homosexuals doesn't mean a character can't be homosexual. Anyone who thinks statistics are an indicator for individuals needs to stop looking at graphs for a while.
As the writers of what is in effect Star Trek Canon, the team behind 'the Kelvin films reserve the right to override 'soft-canon' (which Takei and Gene's statements are, at best, according to Roddenbury's own rules). TNG retconned the warp scale and the trans warp drive. Let's all go hate on TNG, shall we?
I never said that a character can't be homosexual though, did I...
Just because they have the right to override 'soft canon', that doesn't mean they have to exercise it... Does it... Especially not when the person who they said they were trying to Honor, specifically asked them not to do so. Where is the honor in ignoring someone's stated request? (especially when it's someone they claim to hold in high esteem...) But let's just ignore the opinions of the two people who know the character best, because hey, everyone else clearly knows better than they do/did...
It's almost a carbon-copy of whichever X-Men comic made an AU version of Iceman g.ay... It was an attention grab then, and it was an attention-grab in this instance too. If it wasn't, they would never have TweetLeaked it prior to the film's release, in what was a clear attempt to generate 'buzz'...
A slightly different example. If you wanted to get a tattoo to pay reference and respect to a Really Good friend, and when you asked their permission if they were okay with it, they said no and asked you not to do it, would you still get the tattoo? Yes or no answer on that one, please...
As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.
Alternatively, the writers can use some of that talent they supposedly have and create new characters. I don't believe times changing is an excuse to be revisionist.
And then they get accused of creating token characters to cater to the "SJW" crowd. Oh, and of letting the existing characters "stagnate". You just can't win on this front - some folks scream about how they want to read something new, then when you give them something new they complain about it.
On a personal level, I'd rather see a token character, than retcon an existing one to cater to SJWs...
Example: Captain Jack Harkness.
In Empty Child, he was shown as flirting with men and women. In (I forget the episode name) he flirted with robots. In another episode (when he was reunited with the Doctor (as the 10th Doctor)) he flirted with a humanoid/insectoid alien... In short, he flirted with everyone and anything. In Miracle Day, he was strictly depicted as being g.ay...
Barrowman once said in interview that a difference between him and Jack was "I'm [Barrowman] g.ay, he[Jack]'s not..."
A massively popular and much-loved character, was retconned away from one of the very qualities which made him lovable!
Same with making KT Sulu g.ay (against George Takei's request) If they had to incoude a reference to homosexuality because it was plot-relevant, rather than just a tired attempt 'to be hip', I'd much rather they had created a new character than pull that trick on an established one.
IMHO, there's a difference between 'revealing new information about a character', such as Worf having accidentally killed another boy when playing soccer, than 'revealing 'new' information about a character' such as making KT Sulu g.ay and in a relationship no one had ever heard of before.
There's a certain level of respect and obligation when working with someone else's characters, which frankly, they failed to do with KT Sulu...
And to bring it back on topic, yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense that Wonder Woman has had same-sex encounters... The point, or rather non-point the writers should be making, should be "And?? So what??" and down-playing it, not being "We made Wonder Woman G.ay!" to draw attention to another DC future-flop which has 'trying too hard' written all over it (like every other POS movie they've put out since Man of Steel...) All the time hacks can't use g.ay characters without needlessly drawing attention to that as an advertising point, there never will be mainstream acceptance of g.ay people or g.ay rights, because it will atill be being treated as different, and needing differential status, than simply being a 'so what?' notion...
Why does everyone go nuts about KT Sulu? It was barely noticeable! If you happened to blink once during that scene, you'd have missed it! It's not like it was right in our faces! I thought they handled it in a very respectful way by making it a very simple scene without making a big deal out of it. The only reason people are making a big deal out of it is because Paramount made a big deal out of it before the film launched.
I'm not making a big deal out of it, I'm using it as an example of i) unnecessarily retconning a character, and ii) releasing the point to mass media to try and generate hype. You answered your question in your last sentence
Since Sulu's sexual preference was never overtly stated; how is this a retcon?
Don't split hairs, it's a retcon and you know it -- Sulu was written as straight, and George Takei played him that way. It was never explicitly explained in canon presentation, so personal testimony of the actor and writer provides the information instead. If the KT is an alternate universe, and nothing which happens there affects the PrimeVerse in any way, then KT Sulu being g.ay, doesn't impact the sexuality of SuluPrime... As for 'what means SuluPrime is straight though?' Statistics. Statistically speaking, someone is more likely to be straight than g.ay, so without that 'overt stating' which you mention, logic says go with the statistical likelihood -- heterosexuality -- over the statistical unlikelihood -- homosexuality. (and just to point out again, Gene and George have already stated which is the case...) The fate of Michael Douglas' character in Basic Instinct was left unclear, but in an interview, when asked, Sharon Stone made a stabbing motion' indicating that the character was dead. And in Basic Instinct 2, he was dead... Actor testimonial takes over where canon leaves off, or never states, and is as close to 'expert testimonial' as possible in such matters...
As for George Takei objecting - come on, the man will do anything for a headline these days.
For sure. Doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about on this very specific matted though, does it... It also doesn't mean that what he said 'about them contacting him about it and saying that they wanted to do it to honor him' was a lie... Nor does it make it a lie that he said that he didn't want to be 'honored' in that way...
To go back to Basic Instinct as another example: Sharon never knew that Verhoeven had an unattended locked-off camera pointing at the spot where her vag was going to be on the chair. When she went onto that set, she just thought it was set dressing, and paid it no heed. When she then saw the released movie with the vag shot, she went ballistic, and never worked with Verhoeven again (who started using Elisabeth Shue instead...) So yeah, actors have the right to have their feelings taken into account, their wishes and opinions respected, and in instances like these, given benefit of the doubt until definitely proved as lies (which in these cases, they aren't)
Statistically, I'm more likely to be Chinese than British. Just because there happen to be more straight people than homosexuals doesn't mean a character can't be homosexual. Anyone who thinks statistics are an indicator for individuals needs to stop looking at graphs for a while.
As the writers of what is in effect Star Trek Canon, the team behind 'the Kelvin films reserve the right to override 'soft-canon' (which Takei and Gene's statements are, at best, according to Roddenbury's own rules). TNG retconned the warp scale and the trans warp drive. Let's all go hate on TNG, shall we?
I never said that a character can't be homosexual though, did I...
Just because they have the right to override 'soft canon', that doesn't mean they have to exercise it... Does it... Especially not when the person who they said they were trying to Honor, specifically asked them not to do so. Where is the honor in ignoring someone's stated request? (especially when it's someone they claim to hold in high esteem...) But let's just ignore the opinions of the two people who know the character best, because hey, everyone else clearly knows better than they do/did...
It's almost a carbon-copy of whichever X-Men comic made an AU version of Iceman g.ay... It was an attention grab then, and it was an attention-grab in this instance too. If it wasn't, they would never have TweetLeaked it prior to the film's release, in what was a clear attempt to generate 'buzz'...
A slightly different example. If you wanted to get a tattoo to pay reference and respect to a Really Good friend, and when you asked their permission if they were okay with it, they said no and asked you not to do it, would you still get the tattoo? Yes or no answer on that one, please...
No, I wouldn't. But, contrary to popular opinion, George Takei doesn't own the intellectual property rights to Hikaru Sulu. Do I agree with them doing it as a tribute to Takei against his wishes? No. Do I think it was a bad idea overall? No.
In any case, Paramount were screwed on that point the moment they leaked it, as to my understanding Takei only objected after it was revealed. They'd already filmed the scene and they couldn't take it out or LGBT rights groups would have been all over them for it.
In any case, the scene itself (which is what people should be judging IMO) was not a big deal. A brief shot of Sulu with his arm around another bloke and their family. Big whoop. You probably wouldn't be complaining about it if it hadn't been leaked. Judge a film by its own merits, not the marketing behind it, film critique 101. That's the last I'm going to say on this subject. I attempted at the end of my first post on this page to put this back on topic.
You've just made our point for us. If writers don't do new things with characters, including developing on their sexuality (again, just because Wonder Woman is attracted to women doesn't mean she isn't attracted to men anymore!), or changing up love interests, to go back to my Spider-Man example, then those characters stagnate and die.
Actually, no I didn't make your point for you. Quite the contrary. There are plenty of stories out there for existing characters yet to be told. Retconning them for PC purposes isn't necessary as far as I'm concerned.
Apparently, the writers of 'The Death of Gwen Stacey' disagreed with you. They killed her off because they'd written themselves into a corner where they could only tell two stories: her marrying Peter Parker and her Death. Eventually you run out of new stories to tell. That's the whole reason Marvel created the Ultimate Universe, to retell old characters with new and updated stories. And those stories were (IMO) superior in quality to those that came before. It's often the only way to keep characters fresh without running out of stories to tell. Again, Gwen Stacey is a great example of this: they wrote her into a corner where they could only go in two directions, one of which resulted in her death. If they hadn't gone that route or the other (being Gwen and Peter getting married), Spider-Man as a whole would have gotten stale. Likewise, when they had Peter and MJ Lose their marriage in 'Brand New Day', it was because they were running out of material for those two (why they didn't just go the M2 route and bring in Mayday, I don't know) so they broke them up and had Peter develop a new love interest (Carley Cooper), who was a good character and had a very good character arc with Peter, but that got hated on so much, not because it was bad, but because it was different.
As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.
Alternatively, the writers can use some of that talent they supposedly have and create new characters. I don't believe times changing is an excuse to be revisionist.
And then they get accused of creating token characters to cater to the "SJW" crowd. Oh, and of letting the existing characters "stagnate". You just can't win on this front - some folks scream about how they want to read something new, then when you give them something new they complain about it.
On a personal level, I'd rather see a token character, than retcon an existing one to cater to SJWs...
Example: Captain Jack Harkness.
In Empty Child, he was shown as flirting with men and women. In (I forget the episode name) he flirted with robots. In another episode (when he was reunited with the Doctor (as the 10th Doctor)) he flirted with a humanoid/insectoid alien... In short, he flirted with everyone and anything. In Miracle Day, he was strictly depicted as being g.ay...
Barrowman once said in interview that a difference between him and Jack was "I'm [Barrowman] g.ay, he[Jack]'s not..."
A massively popular and much-loved character, was retconned away from one of the very qualities which made him lovable!
Same with making KT Sulu g.ay (against George Takei's request) If they had to incoude a reference to homosexuality because it was plot-relevant, rather than just a tired attempt 'to be hip', I'd much rather they had created a new character than pull that trick on an established one.
IMHO, there's a difference between 'revealing new information about a character', such as Worf having accidentally killed another boy when playing soccer, than 'revealing 'new' information about a character' such as making KT Sulu g.ay and in a relationship no one had ever heard of before.
There's a certain level of respect and obligation when working with someone else's characters, which frankly, they failed to do with KT Sulu...
And to bring it back on topic, yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense that Wonder Woman has had same-sex encounters... The point, or rather non-point the writers should be making, should be "And?? So what??" and down-playing it, not being "We made Wonder Woman G.ay!" to draw attention to another DC future-flop which has 'trying too hard' written all over it (like every other POS movie they've put out since Man of Steel...) All the time hacks can't use g.ay characters without needlessly drawing attention to that as an advertising point, there never will be mainstream acceptance of g.ay people or g.ay rights, because it will atill be being treated as different, and needing differential status, than simply being a 'so what?' notion...
Why does everyone go nuts about KT Sulu? It was barely noticeable! If you happened to blink once during that scene, you'd have missed it! It's not like it was right in our faces! I thought they handled it in a very respectful way by making it a very simple scene without making a big deal out of it. The only reason people are making a big deal out of it is because Paramount made a big deal out of it before the film launched.
I'm not making a big deal out of it, I'm using it as an example of i) unnecessarily retconning a character, and ii) releasing the point to mass media to try and generate hype. You answered your question in your last sentence
Since Sulu's sexual preference was never overtly stated; how is this a retcon?
Don't split hairs, it's a retcon and you know it -- Sulu was written as straight, and George Takei played him that way. It was never explicitly explained in canon presentation, so personal testimony of the actor and writer provides the information instead. If the KT is an alternate universe, and nothing which happens there affects the PrimeVerse in any way, then KT Sulu being g.ay, doesn't impact the sexuality of SuluPrime... As for 'what means SuluPrime is straight though?' Statistics. Statistically speaking, someone is more likely to be straight than g.ay, so without that 'overt stating' which you mention, logic says go with the statistical likelihood -- heterosexuality -- over the statistical unlikelihood -- homosexuality. (and just to point out again, Gene and George have already stated which is the case...) The fate of Michael Douglas' character in Basic Instinct was left unclear, but in an interview, when asked, Sharon Stone made a stabbing motion' indicating that the character was dead. And in Basic Instinct 2, he was dead... Actor testimonial takes over where canon leaves off, or never states, and is as close to 'expert testimonial' as possible in such matters...
As for George Takei objecting - come on, the man will do anything for a headline these days.
For sure. Doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about on this very specific matted though, does it... It also doesn't mean that what he said 'about them contacting him about it and saying that they wanted to do it to honor him' was a lie... Nor does it make it a lie that he said that he didn't want to be 'honored' in that way...
To go back to Basic Instinct as another example: Sharon never knew that Verhoeven had an unattended locked-off camera pointing at the spot where her vag was going to be on the chair. When she went onto that set, she just thought it was set dressing, and paid it no heed. When she then saw the released movie with the vag shot, she went ballistic, and never worked with Verhoeven again (who started using Elisabeth Shue instead...) So yeah, actors have the right to have their feelings taken into account, their wishes and opinions respected, and in instances like these, given benefit of the doubt until definitely proved as lies (which in these cases, they aren't)
Statistically, I'm more likely to be Chinese than British. Just because there happen to be more straight people than homosexuals doesn't mean a character can't be homosexual. Anyone who thinks statistics are an indicator for individuals needs to stop looking at graphs for a while.
As the writers of what is in effect Star Trek Canon, the team behind 'the Kelvin films reserve the right to override 'soft-canon' (which Takei and Gene's statements are, at best, according to Roddenbury's own rules). TNG retconned the warp scale and the trans warp drive. Let's all go hate on TNG, shall we?
I never said that a character can't be homosexual though, did I...
Just because they have the right to override 'soft canon', that doesn't mean they have to exercise it... Does it... Especially not when the person who they said they were trying to Honor, specifically asked them not to do so. Where is the honor in ignoring someone's stated request? (especially when it's someone they claim to hold in high esteem...) But let's just ignore the opinions of the two people who know the character best, because hey, everyone else clearly knows better than they do/did...
It's almost a carbon-copy of whichever X-Men comic made an AU version of Iceman g.ay... It was an attention grab then, and it was an attention-grab in this instance too. If it wasn't, they would never have TweetLeaked it prior to the film's release, in what was a clear attempt to generate 'buzz'...
A slightly different example. If you wanted to get a tattoo to pay reference and respect to a Really Good friend, and when you asked their permission if they were okay with it, they said no and asked you not to do it, would you still get the tattoo? Yes or no answer on that one, please...
No, I wouldn't. But, contrary to popular opinion, George Takei doesn't own the intellectual property rights to Hikaru Sulu. Do I agree with them doing it as a tribute to Takei against his wishes? No. Do I think it was a bad idea overall? No.
In any case, Paramount were screwed on that point the moment they leaked it, as to my understanding Takei only objected after it was revealed. They'd already filmed the scene and they couldn't take it out or LGBT rights groups would have been all over them for it.
In any case, the scene itself (which is what people should be judging IMO) was not a big deal. A brief shot of Sulu with his arm around another bloke and their family. Big whoop. You probably wouldn't be complaining about it if it hadn't been leaked. Judge a film by its own merits, not the marketing behind it, film critique 101. That's the last I'm going to say on this subject. I attempted at the end of my first post on this page to put this back on topic.
Okay, so you wouldn't get a tribute tattoo for a friend if they asked you not to, and you don't think it was a good idea for them to do it as a tribute to George without his permission... Could you explain why you don't think that was a bad idea?
Well, for them to have filmed it before asking George, see the tattoo example... It's making a presumption of permission, which is disrespectful.
Just to clarify, my complaint is not about the content of the scene (which you're quite right, I haven't seen yet) My issues are that they overstepped the bounds with regards George's feelings on the subject, and additionally,that they TweetLeaked it to generate 'buzz'... This is the 21st Century -- homosexuality isn't shocking or hip anymore... It's just something that some people are... Using the subject in this manner just draws more attention to it as if it was (because it's being used to generate 'buzz') so actually sets progress back, by highlighting it as something considered (by them) as 'unusual/newsworthy'... Had they not TweetLeaked it, I would still have an issue with them for going against George's wishes, because let's be honest, without him, there wouldn't be a Hikaru Sulu to even retcon. I would just think that they were arrogant, not arrogant and attention-seeking...
Umm... doesn't the existence of Demora Sulu count as proof prime Sulu was not ****?
Actually no... G.ay couples can have kids, either via surrogacy or adoption, etc... Sadly, the one thing which might actually prove SuluPrime being straight, is actually proof that g.ay couples have as much right to be parents as straight couples...
You know, George didn't actually object to the portrayal. When a reporter asked him about it, he said that it's not how he played the character, nor how Gene had envisioned him, but he thought Cho had the acting chops to carry it off. Headline writers tried to blow it up into this huge thing, but that's on them, not him.
The "One More Day" storyline in Spider-Man, on the other hand, was the result of a (now former) Editor-in-Chief who didn't want to do anything new with the character. Spider-Man wasn't in danger of getting stale - he was in danger of exceeding the status quo. (After all, instead of being a perpetual loser, Peter was in fact at that point a well-known superhero, an Avenger, and married to a gorgeous redhead who loved him very much.) And Joe Quesada couldn't have that, so he ordered J. Michael Straczynski, who was writing the title at the time, to break them up. In fact, it was Quesada's idea to sell their marriage to (essentially) Satan. JMS wound up quitting in large part because of that.
As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.
Alternatively, the writers can use some of that talent they supposedly have and create new characters. I don't believe times changing is an excuse to be revisionist.
And then they get accused of creating token characters to cater to the "SJW" crowd. Oh, and of letting the existing characters "stagnate". You just can't win on this front - some folks scream about how they want to read something new, then when you give them something new they complain about it.
On a personal level, I'd rather see a token character, than retcon an existing one to cater to SJWs...
Example: Captain Jack Harkness.
In Empty Child, he was shown as flirting with men and women. In (I forget the episode name) he flirted with robots. In another episode (when he was reunited with the Doctor (as the 10th Doctor)) he flirted with a humanoid/insectoid alien... In short, he flirted with everyone and anything. In Miracle Day, he was strictly depicted as being g.ay...
Barrowman once said in interview that a difference between him and Jack was "I'm [Barrowman] g.ay, he[Jack]'s not..."
A massively popular and much-loved character, was retconned away from one of the very qualities which made him lovable!
Same with making KT Sulu g.ay (against George Takei's request) If they had to incoude a reference to homosexuality because it was plot-relevant, rather than just a tired attempt 'to be hip', I'd much rather they had created a new character than pull that trick on an established one.
IMHO, there's a difference between 'revealing new information about a character', such as Worf having accidentally killed another boy when playing soccer, than 'revealing 'new' information about a character' such as making KT Sulu g.ay and in a relationship no one had ever heard of before.
There's a certain level of respect and obligation when working with someone else's characters, which frankly, they failed to do with KT Sulu...
And to bring it back on topic, yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense that Wonder Woman has had same-sex encounters... The point, or rather non-point the writers should be making, should be "And?? So what??" and down-playing it, not being "We made Wonder Woman G.ay!" to draw attention to another DC future-flop which has 'trying too hard' written all over it (like every other POS movie they've put out since Man of Steel...) All the time hacks can't use g.ay characters without needlessly drawing attention to that as an advertising point, there never will be mainstream acceptance of g.ay people or g.ay rights, because it will atill be being treated as different, and needing differential status, than simply being a 'so what?' notion...
Why does everyone go nuts about KT Sulu? It was barely noticeable! If you happened to blink once during that scene, you'd have missed it! It's not like it was right in our faces! I thought they handled it in a very respectful way by making it a very simple scene without making a big deal out of it. The only reason people are making a big deal out of it is because Paramount made a big deal out of it before the film launched.
I'm not making a big deal out of it, I'm using it as an example of i) unnecessarily retconning a character, and ii) releasing the point to mass media to try and generate hype. You answered your question in your last sentence
Since Sulu's sexual preference was never overtly stated; how is this a retcon?
Don't split hairs, it's a retcon and you know it -- Sulu was written as straight, and George Takei played him that way. It was never explicitly explained in canon presentation, so personal testimony of the actor and writer provides the information instead. If the KT is an alternate universe, and nothing which happens there affects the PrimeVerse in any way, then KT Sulu being g.ay, doesn't impact the sexuality of SuluPrime... As for 'what means SuluPrime is straight though?' Statistics. Statistically speaking, someone is more likely to be straight than g.ay, so without that 'overt stating' which you mention, logic says go with the statistical likelihood -- heterosexuality -- over the statistical unlikelihood -- homosexuality. (and just to point out again, Gene and George have already stated which is the case...) The fate of Michael Douglas' character in Basic Instinct was left unclear, but in an interview, when asked, Sharon Stone made a stabbing motion' indicating that the character was dead. And in Basic Instinct 2, he was dead... Actor testimonial takes over where canon leaves off, or never states, and is as close to 'expert testimonial' as possible in such matters...
As for George Takei objecting - come on, the man will do anything for a headline these days.
For sure. Doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about on this very specific matted though, does it... It also doesn't mean that what he said 'about them contacting him about it and saying that they wanted to do it to honor him' was a lie... Nor does it make it a lie that he said that he didn't want to be 'honored' in that way...
To go back to Basic Instinct as another example: Sharon never knew that Verhoeven had an unattended locked-off camera pointing at the spot where her vag was going to be on the chair. When she went onto that set, she just thought it was set dressing, and paid it no heed. When she then saw the released movie with the vag shot, she went ballistic, and never worked with Verhoeven again (who started using Elisabeth Shue instead...) So yeah, actors have the right to have their feelings taken into account, their wishes and opinions respected, and in instances like these, given benefit of the doubt until definitely proved as lies (which in these cases, they aren't)
Statistically, I'm more likely to be Chinese than British. Just because there happen to be more straight people than homosexuals doesn't mean a character can't be homosexual. Anyone who thinks statistics are an indicator for individuals needs to stop looking at graphs for a while.
As the writers of what is in effect Star Trek Canon, the team behind 'the Kelvin films reserve the right to override 'soft-canon' (which Takei and Gene's statements are, at best, according to Roddenbury's own rules). TNG retconned the warp scale and the trans warp drive. Let's all go hate on TNG, shall we?
I never said that a character can't be homosexual though, did I...
Just because they have the right to override 'soft canon', that doesn't mean they have to exercise it... Does it... Especially not when the person who they said they were trying to Honor, specifically asked them not to do so. Where is the honor in ignoring someone's stated request? (especially when it's someone they claim to hold in high esteem...) But let's just ignore the opinions of the two people who know the character best, because hey, everyone else clearly knows better than they do/did...
It's almost a carbon-copy of whichever X-Men comic made an AU version of Iceman g.ay... It was an attention grab then, and it was an attention-grab in this instance too. If it wasn't, they would never have TweetLeaked it prior to the film's release, in what was a clear attempt to generate 'buzz'...
A slightly different example. If you wanted to get a tattoo to pay reference and respect to a Really Good friend, and when you asked their permission if they were okay with it, they said no and asked you not to do it, would you still get the tattoo? Yes or no answer on that one, please...
No, I wouldn't. But, contrary to popular opinion, George Takei doesn't own the intellectual property rights to Hikaru Sulu. Do I agree with them doing it as a tribute to Takei against his wishes? No. Do I think it was a bad idea overall? No.
In any case, Paramount were screwed on that point the moment they leaked it, as to my understanding Takei only objected after it was revealed. They'd already filmed the scene and they couldn't take it out or LGBT rights groups would have been all over them for it.
In any case, the scene itself (which is what people should be judging IMO) was not a big deal. A brief shot of Sulu with his arm around another bloke and their family. Big whoop. You probably wouldn't be complaining about it if it hadn't been leaked. Judge a film by its own merits, not the marketing behind it, film critique 101. That's the last I'm going to say on this subject. I attempted at the end of my first post on this page to put this back on topic.
Okay, so you wouldn't get a tribute tattoo for a friend if they asked you not to, and you don't think it was a good idea for them to do it as a tribute to George without his permission... Could you explain why you don't think that was a bad idea?
Well, for them to have filmed it before asking George, see the tattoo example... It's making a presumption of permission, which is disrespectful.
Just to clarify, my complaint is not about the content of the scene (which you're quite right, I haven't seen yet) My issues are that they overstepped the bounds with regards George's feelings on the subject, and additionally,that they TweetLeaked it to generate 'buzz'... This is the 21st Century -- homosexuality isn't shocking or hip anymore... It's just something that some people are... Using the subject in this manner just draws more attention to it as if it was (because it's being used to generate 'buzz') so actually sets progress back, by highlighting it as something considered (by them) as 'unusual/newsworthy'... Had they not TweetLeaked it, I would still have an issue with them for going against George's wishes, because let's be honest, without him, there wouldn't be a Hikaru Sulu to even retcon. I would just think that they were arrogant, not arrogant and attention-seeking...
No disrespect to Takei, but he doesn't play Sulu anymore. I mean that I don't feel making Sulu a homosexual, overall, was a bad idea, not that it wasn't a bad idea to do it as a tribute to Takei without asking him first (which, as you say, I explicitly state was a bad idea). If it were not a to Takei, then they would have no need to take his views into consideration, because, quite frankly, KT Sulu isn't his character.
Also, if it hadn't been for George Takei, there would still be a Sulu to retcon, he would just be played by a different actor.
(...)
It was bad enough when all those foreigners were coming for our women, but now our own women are coming for our women, too!!!11oneoneeleven
Yes yes, they do
EDIT: Regarding the Takei discussion and I think @jonsills pointed that out (sorry if I mix that up), George Takei did not "request" or "protest" anything. What he did was stating that neither he nor Gene Roddenberry intented or viewed Sulu as homosexual. He also thought of writing Sulu to be TRIBBLE for the reason of Takei being TRIBBLE was an unlucky choice. And I agree with him because it does create that awkwardness and flavour of token character and especially the notion of making a character homosexual because the actor who portrayed him is very blunt. Takei is however pleased to finally see a homosexual character in Star Trek, and I agree with him, let alone being portrayed in such a casual and inclusive way. Still, the choice remains questionable in my opinion because it was ultimately a clumsy choice.
However, this has nothing to do with people whining about "SJWs" and twisting things around so somehow they are suddenly victims of non-straight character appearing in media. I completely agree that sexuality is rarely relevant for a piece of fiction and the character in question, however it does feel good to see natural inclusion of homosexuality in popular culture. Accept it, it won't go away.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Regardless, they deliberately brought attention to that fact. How often do you see people drawing attention to things along the lines of 'Look at us, we made X heterosexual!'? Pretty much never. Why? Because it's considered normal by a sufficiently large portion of the population. No points for inclusivity, and no PR from when someone invariably decides that it's a mistake.
Did Cryptic draw special attention to Trevana and B'Eler when they released House Pegh? Did they brag about it, hoping it'd cause discussions like these? (Not that the discussions didn't happen anyway, but whatever.)
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Regardless, they deliberately brought attention to that fact. How often do you see people drawing attention to things along the lines of 'Look at us, we made X heterosexual!'? Pretty much never. Why? Because it's considered normal by a sufficiently large portion of the population. No points for inclusivity, and no PR from when someone invariably decides that it's a mistake.
Did Cryptic draw special attention to Trevana and B'Eler when they released House Pegh? Did they brag about it, hoping it'd cause discussions like these? (Not that the discussions didn't happen anyway, but whatever.)
The media circus aside, the actual depiction was well done. I do not approve of the attention grabbing, but it still feels good if the result is well done (which Cryptic and Beyond did). I could care less why it was included ultimately. I "have" to watch straight romance in every squealin' movie be it fantasy, sci-fi or action regardless wether it is appropriate or not, most of the time it is extremely forced and shallow. Now if homosexual "romance" finds it's way in there that's a good thing Funny thing, we mostly talk US American movies here. British film and television makers for instance pretty much include homosexuality in a very casual and natural way for years now, without anyone making a fuss about it, because it's already normal. The US of A, which sadly dominates the media basically worldwide, still haven't matured enough at this point.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Regardless, they deliberately brought attention to that fact. How often do you see people drawing attention to things along the lines of 'Look at us, we made X heterosexual!'? Pretty much never. Why? Because it's considered normal by a sufficiently large portion of the population. No points for inclusivity, and no PR from when someone invariably decides that it's a mistake.
Did Cryptic draw special attention to Trevana and B'Eler when they released House Pegh? Did they brag about it, hoping it'd cause discussions like these? (Not that the discussions didn't happen anyway, but whatever.)
The media circus aside, the actual depiction was well done. I do not approve of the attention grabbing, but it still feels good if the result is well done (which Cryptic and Beyond did). I could care less why it was included ultimately. I "have" to watch straight romance in every squealin' movie be it fantasy, sci-fi or action regardless wether it is appropriate or not, most of the time it is extremely forced and shallow. Now if homosexual "romance" finds it's way in there that's a good thing Funny thing, we mostly talk US American movies here. British film and television makers for instance pretty much include homosexuality in a very casual and natural way for years now, without anyone making a fuss about it, because it's already normal. The US of A, which sadly dominates the media basically worldwide, still haven't matured enough at this point.
Perfect demonstration of that point, how many people brag about the first televised homosexual kiss happening on DS9? The UK bet them by TWENTY YEARS and to be honest with you, nobody made a big deal of it at the time and as a result it was pretty much forgotten unless you know your TV trivia.
But then there is a fundamental difference in the political landscape where the UK is a lot more accepting. Even your right wing nutjobs seem to draw the line at homophobia. It is rather curious how it has seemingly vanished over the past few decades, although it still is ever present in certain groups away from politics.
You know, George didn't actually object to the portrayal. When a reporter asked him about it, he said that it's not how he played the character, nor how Gene had envisioned him, but he thought Cho had the acting chops to carry it off. Headline writers tried to blow it up into this huge thing, but that's on them, not him.
You have really got to stop making definitive statements which aren't factual... The other day you tried to shut me down, claiming that something which was reductio ad absurdum was not reductio ad absurdum, and then the post's author admitted, that it absolutely was absurdio ad reductum! Now you're saying that George didn't actually object to the portrayal... He absolutely did object (albeit politely and in a very subtle way) and here are some examples showing that:
Now I appreciate that for the most part, those articles are saying the same thing (which makes sense) but some are showing more, and different content than others, but the point is clear, that George was not entirely happy or agree with what they did, but is being polite about it. Simon Pegg, is showing the arrogance I saw in him when Shaun of the Dead was first released, and which always soured my opinion of him as a person (paradoxically, I really enjoy his writing and films, I'm just not a fan of him personally)
I haven't come across George's original comment on the topic, and I'm not going to waste my time trawling google for it, but I believe it was essentially a more strongly-worded version of his clarifying release.
As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.
Alternatively, the writers can use some of that talent they supposedly have and create new characters. I don't believe times changing is an excuse to be revisionist.
And then they get accused of creating token characters to cater to the "SJW" crowd. Oh, and of letting the existing characters "stagnate". You just can't win on this front - some folks scream about how they want to read something new, then when you give them something new they complain about it.
On a personal level, I'd rather see a token character, than retcon an existing one to cater to SJWs...
Example: Captain Jack Harkness.
In Empty Child, he was shown as flirting with men and women. In (I forget the episode name) he flirted with robots. In another episode (when he was reunited with the Doctor (as the 10th Doctor)) he flirted with a humanoid/insectoid alien... In short, he flirted with everyone and anything. In Miracle Day, he was strictly depicted as being g.ay...
Barrowman once said in interview that a difference between him and Jack was "I'm [Barrowman] g.ay, he[Jack]'s not..."
A massively popular and much-loved character, was retconned away from one of the very qualities which made him lovable!
Same with making KT Sulu g.ay (against George Takei's request) If they had to incoude a reference to homosexuality because it was plot-relevant, rather than just a tired attempt 'to be hip', I'd much rather they had created a new character than pull that trick on an established one.
IMHO, there's a difference between 'revealing new information about a character', such as Worf having accidentally killed another boy when playing soccer, than 'revealing 'new' information about a character' such as making KT Sulu g.ay and in a relationship no one had ever heard of before.
There's a certain level of respect and obligation when working with someone else's characters, which frankly, they failed to do with KT Sulu...
And to bring it back on topic, yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense that Wonder Woman has had same-sex encounters... The point, or rather non-point the writers should be making, should be "And?? So what??" and down-playing it, not being "We made Wonder Woman G.ay!" to draw attention to another DC future-flop which has 'trying too hard' written all over it (like every other POS movie they've put out since Man of Steel...) All the time hacks can't use g.ay characters without needlessly drawing attention to that as an advertising point, there never will be mainstream acceptance of g.ay people or g.ay rights, because it will atill be being treated as different, and needing differential status, than simply being a 'so what?' notion...
Why does everyone go nuts about KT Sulu? It was barely noticeable! If you happened to blink once during that scene, you'd have missed it! It's not like it was right in our faces! I thought they handled it in a very respectful way by making it a very simple scene without making a big deal out of it. The only reason people are making a big deal out of it is because Paramount made a big deal out of it before the film launched.
I'm not making a big deal out of it, I'm using it as an example of i) unnecessarily retconning a character, and ii) releasing the point to mass media to try and generate hype. You answered your question in your last sentence
Since Sulu's sexual preference was never overtly stated; how is this a retcon?
Don't split hairs, it's a retcon and you know it -- Sulu was written as straight, and George Takei played him that way. It was never explicitly explained in canon presentation, so personal testimony of the actor and writer provides the information instead. If the KT is an alternate universe, and nothing which happens there affects the PrimeVerse in any way, then KT Sulu being g.ay, doesn't impact the sexuality of SuluPrime... As for 'what means SuluPrime is straight though?' Statistics. Statistically speaking, someone is more likely to be straight than g.ay, so without that 'overt stating' which you mention, logic says go with the statistical likelihood -- heterosexuality -- over the statistical unlikelihood -- homosexuality. (and just to point out again, Gene and George have already stated which is the case...) The fate of Michael Douglas' character in Basic Instinct was left unclear, but in an interview, when asked, Sharon Stone made a stabbing motion' indicating that the character was dead. And in Basic Instinct 2, he was dead... Actor testimonial takes over where canon leaves off, or never states, and is as close to 'expert testimonial' as possible in such matters...
As for George Takei objecting - come on, the man will do anything for a headline these days.
For sure. Doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about on this very specific matted though, does it... It also doesn't mean that what he said 'about them contacting him about it and saying that they wanted to do it to honor him' was a lie... Nor does it make it a lie that he said that he didn't want to be 'honored' in that way...
To go back to Basic Instinct as another example: Sharon never knew that Verhoeven had an unattended locked-off camera pointing at the spot where her vag was going to be on the chair. When she went onto that set, she just thought it was set dressing, and paid it no heed. When she then saw the released movie with the vag shot, she went ballistic, and never worked with Verhoeven again (who started using Elisabeth Shue instead...) So yeah, actors have the right to have their feelings taken into account, their wishes and opinions respected, and in instances like these, given benefit of the doubt until definitely proved as lies (which in these cases, they aren't)
Statistically, I'm more likely to be Chinese than British. Just because there happen to be more straight people than homosexuals doesn't mean a character can't be homosexual. Anyone who thinks statistics are an indicator for individuals needs to stop looking at graphs for a while.
As the writers of what is in effect Star Trek Canon, the team behind 'the Kelvin films reserve the right to override 'soft-canon' (which Takei and Gene's statements are, at best, according to Roddenbury's own rules). TNG retconned the warp scale and the trans warp drive. Let's all go hate on TNG, shall we?
I never said that a character can't be homosexual though, did I...
Just because they have the right to override 'soft canon', that doesn't mean they have to exercise it... Does it... Especially not when the person who they said they were trying to Honor, specifically asked them not to do so. Where is the honor in ignoring someone's stated request? (especially when it's someone they claim to hold in high esteem...) But let's just ignore the opinions of the two people who know the character best, because hey, everyone else clearly knows better than they do/did...
It's almost a carbon-copy of whichever X-Men comic made an AU version of Iceman g.ay... It was an attention grab then, and it was an attention-grab in this instance too. If it wasn't, they would never have TweetLeaked it prior to the film's release, in what was a clear attempt to generate 'buzz'...
A slightly different example. If you wanted to get a tattoo to pay reference and respect to a Really Good friend, and when you asked their permission if they were okay with it, they said no and asked you not to do it, would you still get the tattoo? Yes or no answer on that one, please...
No, I wouldn't. But, contrary to popular opinion, George Takei doesn't own the intellectual property rights to Hikaru Sulu. Do I agree with them doing it as a tribute to Takei against his wishes? No. Do I think it was a bad idea overall? No.
In any case, Paramount were screwed on that point the moment they leaked it, as to my understanding Takei only objected after it was revealed. They'd already filmed the scene and they couldn't take it out or LGBT rights groups would have been all over them for it.
In any case, the scene itself (which is what people should be judging IMO) was not a big deal. A brief shot of Sulu with his arm around another bloke and their family. Big whoop. You probably wouldn't be complaining about it if it hadn't been leaked. Judge a film by its own merits, not the marketing behind it, film critique 101. That's the last I'm going to say on this subject. I attempted at the end of my first post on this page to put this back on topic.
Okay, so you wouldn't get a tribute tattoo for a friend if they asked you not to, and you don't think it was a good idea for them to do it as a tribute to George without his permission... Could you explain why you don't think that was a bad idea?
Well, for them to have filmed it before asking George, see the tattoo example... It's making a presumption of permission, which is disrespectful.
Just to clarify, my complaint is not about the content of the scene (which you're quite right, I haven't seen yet) My issues are that they overstepped the bounds with regards George's feelings on the subject, and additionally,that they TweetLeaked it to generate 'buzz'... This is the 21st Century -- homosexuality isn't shocking or hip anymore... It's just something that some people are... Using the subject in this manner just draws more attention to it as if it was (because it's being used to generate 'buzz') so actually sets progress back, by highlighting it as something considered (by them) as 'unusual/newsworthy'... Had they not TweetLeaked it, I would still have an issue with them for going against George's wishes, because let's be honest, without him, there wouldn't be a Hikaru Sulu to even retcon. I would just think that they were arrogant, not arrogant and attention-seeking...
No disrespect to Takei, but he doesn't play Sulu anymore. I mean that I don't feel making Sulu a homosexual, overall, was a bad idea, not that it wasn't a bad idea to do it as a tribute to Takei without asking him first (which, as you say, I explicitly state was a bad idea). If it were not a to Takei, then they would have no need to take his views into consideration, because, quite frankly, KT Sulu isn't his character.
Also, if it hadn't been for George Takei, there would still be a Sulu to retcon, he would just be played by a different actor.
It doesn't matter that he doesn't play Sulu anymore. He played him for decades, and will have a massive emotional connection to the character. I saw someone at a convention ask Virginia Hey if she would say something in character as Zhaan, which she declined to do (meaning it was clear that there was absolutely no chance that she was going to do it, but she was too gracious and polite to refuse in a harsh manner) because she wasn't in costume or makeup, and that to do so "would be disrespectful to Zhaan..." When she was asked if Farscape would become a web-series, she said that a web series "wouldn't be able to do it properly" (ie not sufficient budget) which would also "be disrespectful to the characters..." Now she wasn't being nasty or unkind (her tone of voice really did take the sting out of the words) just very clear on the topic. I have absolutely no doubt, that George's feelings about Sulu, are every bit as strong, and along similar lines to Virginia's feelings towards Zhaan. It doesn't matter that they don't play them anymore, their attachment to the characters, and their opinions on them, are every bit as valid.
Actually, that is true, but Sulu would still have been straight, because that's how Gene wrote him...
(...)
It was bad enough when all those foreigners were coming for our women, but now our own women are coming for our women, too!!!11oneoneeleven
Yes yes, they do
EDIT: Regarding the Takei discussion and I think @jonsills pointed that out (sorry if I mix that up), George Takei did not "request" or "protest" anything. What he did was stating that neither he nor Gene Roddenberry intented or viewed Sulu as homosexual. He also thought of writing Sulu to be **** for the reason of Takei being **** was an unlucky choice. And I agree with him because it does create that awkwardness and flavour of token character and especially the notion of making a character homosexual because the actor who portrayed him is very blunt. Takei is however pleased to finally see a homosexual character in Star Trek, and I agree with him, let alone being portrayed in such a casual and inclusive way. Still, the choice remains questionable in my opinion because it was ultimately a clumsy choice.
However, this has nothing to do with people whining about "SJWs" and twisting things around so somehow they are suddenly victims of non-straight character appearing in media. I completely agree that sexuality is rarely relevant for a piece of fiction and the character in question, however it does feel good to see natural inclusion of homosexuality in popular culture. Accept it, it won't go away.
Once again, I have no issue with the content. I want to see more natural inclusion of homosexuality in pop culture. But no matter how much inclusion there is, bigots are only ever going to see it as 'pushing an agenda', and it needs to be done subtely... Showing it in the background of a story as the irrelevance it is, not TweetLeak about it prior to release going "Ooh, ooh, Look what I did! I wrote about teh gheys!!!" in the hopes of getting attention... That's not treating the subject with respect or doing anything to help broaden acceptance, it's treating the subject as something unusual enough to be considered noteworthy enough to use as clickbait... I'm not objecting to the content, I'm objecting to how the subject is being handled and presented, and how it shows that sadly, attitudes toward the subject still have a long way to go...
[Edit to add] I believe that in his first posting about the subject, he said that he had asked them not to do so (because he felt it would be better to create a new character)
Comments
This...
Or maybe it's done solely to advance the backstory of a character and not an agenda.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Realistically it's unfair to compare those who DEFINED superhero comics with those who came later.
My character Tsin'xing
Impossible. Gays cannot be gays without expanding their evil TRIBBLE plans. Did you know that a prime TRIBBLE goal is to take away marriage from straight people? And just yesterday I feel a TRIBBLE got treated even more equal than the average straight person! Maniacal laugh! Maniacal laugh!
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Honestly, whenever someone feels compelled to say 'Oh, oh, I did it! I did it!' with regards to thing like this... it's a fair bet anyone saying it's not intended as PR (either straight-up or via controversy) is being quite a bit naive. Marcus and Valoreah have a point there.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
The forum's censorship just made that 10 times funnier
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Maybe it is like for many musicians - people always want to hear the old hits, many ignore the new stuff?
If Star Trek is any indication, the existing fandom can be the biggest hurdle to actually create something new. (This should be a warning to all those remake and franchise fanatics in Hollywood... Or not, maybe you can actually deliver more of the same and still make money.)
It was bad enough when all those foreigners were coming for our women, but now our own women are coming for our women, too!!!11oneoneeleven
You've just made our point for us. If writers don't do new things with characters, including developing on their sexuality (again, just because Wonder Woman is attracted to women doesn't mean she isn't attracted to men anymore!), or changing up love interests, to go back to my Spider-Man example, then those characters stagnate and die.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
My character Tsin'xing
For sure. Doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about on this very specific matted though, does it... It also doesn't mean that what he said 'about them contacting him about it and saying that they wanted to do it to honor him' was a lie... Nor does it make it a lie that he said that he didn't want to be 'honored' in that way...
To go back to Basic Instinct as another example: Sharon never knew that Verhoeven had an unattended locked-off camera pointing at the spot where her vag was going to be on the chair. When she went onto that set, she just thought it was set dressing, and paid it no heed. When she then saw the released movie with the vag shot, she went ballistic, and never worked with Verhoeven again (who started using Elisabeth Shue instead...) So yeah, actors have the right to have their feelings taken into account, their wishes and opinions respected, and in instances like these, given benefit of the doubt until definitely proved as lies (which in these cases, they aren't)
Statistically, I'm more likely to be Chinese than British. Just because there happen to be more straight people than homosexuals doesn't mean a character can't be homosexual. Anyone who thinks statistics are an indicator for individuals needs to stop looking at graphs for a while.
As the writers of what is in effect Star Trek Canon, the team behind 'the Kelvin films reserve the right to override 'soft-canon' (which Takei and Gene's statements are, at best, according to Roddenbury's own rules). TNG retconned the warp scale and the trans warp drive. Let's all go hate on TNG, shall we?
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Just because they have the right to override 'soft canon', that doesn't mean they have to exercise it... Does it... Especially not when the person who they said they were trying to Honor, specifically asked them not to do so. Where is the honor in ignoring someone's stated request? (especially when it's someone they claim to hold in high esteem...) But let's just ignore the opinions of the two people who know the character best, because hey, everyone else clearly knows better than they do/did...
It's almost a carbon-copy of whichever X-Men comic made an AU version of Iceman g.ay... It was an attention grab then, and it was an attention-grab in this instance too. If it wasn't, they would never have TweetLeaked it prior to the film's release, in what was a clear attempt to generate 'buzz'...
A slightly different example. If you wanted to get a tattoo to pay reference and respect to a Really Good friend, and when you asked their permission if they were okay with it, they said no and asked you not to do it, would you still get the tattoo? Yes or no answer on that one, please...
No, I wouldn't. But, contrary to popular opinion, George Takei doesn't own the intellectual property rights to Hikaru Sulu. Do I agree with them doing it as a tribute to Takei against his wishes? No. Do I think it was a bad idea overall? No.
In any case, Paramount were screwed on that point the moment they leaked it, as to my understanding Takei only objected after it was revealed. They'd already filmed the scene and they couldn't take it out or LGBT rights groups would have been all over them for it.
In any case, the scene itself (which is what people should be judging IMO) was not a big deal. A brief shot of Sulu with his arm around another bloke and their family. Big whoop. You probably wouldn't be complaining about it if it hadn't been leaked. Judge a film by its own merits, not the marketing behind it, film critique 101. That's the last I'm going to say on this subject. I attempted at the end of my first post on this page to put this back on topic.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Apparently, the writers of 'The Death of Gwen Stacey' disagreed with you. They killed her off because they'd written themselves into a corner where they could only tell two stories: her marrying Peter Parker and her Death. Eventually you run out of new stories to tell. That's the whole reason Marvel created the Ultimate Universe, to retell old characters with new and updated stories. And those stories were (IMO) superior in quality to those that came before. It's often the only way to keep characters fresh without running out of stories to tell. Again, Gwen Stacey is a great example of this: they wrote her into a corner where they could only go in two directions, one of which resulted in her death. If they hadn't gone that route or the other (being Gwen and Peter getting married), Spider-Man as a whole would have gotten stale. Likewise, when they had Peter and MJ Lose their marriage in 'Brand New Day', it was because they were running out of material for those two (why they didn't just go the M2 route and bring in Mayday, I don't know) so they broke them up and had Peter develop a new love interest (Carley Cooper), who was a good character and had a very good character arc with Peter, but that got hated on so much, not because it was bad, but because it was different.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Well, for them to have filmed it before asking George, see the tattoo example... It's making a presumption of permission, which is disrespectful.
Just to clarify, my complaint is not about the content of the scene (which you're quite right, I haven't seen yet) My issues are that they overstepped the bounds with regards George's feelings on the subject, and additionally,that they TweetLeaked it to generate 'buzz'... This is the 21st Century -- homosexuality isn't shocking or hip anymore... It's just something that some people are... Using the subject in this manner just draws more attention to it as if it was (because it's being used to generate 'buzz') so actually sets progress back, by highlighting it as something considered (by them) as 'unusual/newsworthy'... Had they not TweetLeaked it, I would still have an issue with them for going against George's wishes, because let's be honest, without him, there wouldn't be a Hikaru Sulu to even retcon. I would just think that they were arrogant, not arrogant and attention-seeking...
>_>
~heads to WW's island~
My character Tsin'xing
The "One More Day" storyline in Spider-Man, on the other hand, was the result of a (now former) Editor-in-Chief who didn't want to do anything new with the character. Spider-Man wasn't in danger of getting stale - he was in danger of exceeding the status quo. (After all, instead of being a perpetual loser, Peter was in fact at that point a well-known superhero, an Avenger, and married to a gorgeous redhead who loved him very much.) And Joe Quesada couldn't have that, so he ordered J. Michael Straczynski, who was writing the title at the time, to break them up. In fact, it was Quesada's idea to sell their marriage to (essentially) Satan. JMS wound up quitting in large part because of that.
No disrespect to Takei, but he doesn't play Sulu anymore. I mean that I don't feel making Sulu a homosexual, overall, was a bad idea, not that it wasn't a bad idea to do it as a tribute to Takei without asking him first (which, as you say, I explicitly state was a bad idea). If it were not a to Takei, then they would have no need to take his views into consideration, because, quite frankly, KT Sulu isn't his character.
Also, if it hadn't been for George Takei, there would still be a Sulu to retcon, he would just be played by a different actor.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Yes yes, it did
Yes yes, they do
EDIT: Regarding the Takei discussion and I think @jonsills pointed that out (sorry if I mix that up), George Takei did not "request" or "protest" anything. What he did was stating that neither he nor Gene Roddenberry intented or viewed Sulu as homosexual. He also thought of writing Sulu to be TRIBBLE for the reason of Takei being TRIBBLE was an unlucky choice. And I agree with him because it does create that awkwardness and flavour of token character and especially the notion of making a character homosexual because the actor who portrayed him is very blunt. Takei is however pleased to finally see a homosexual character in Star Trek, and I agree with him, let alone being portrayed in such a casual and inclusive way. Still, the choice remains questionable in my opinion because it was ultimately a clumsy choice.
However, this has nothing to do with people whining about "SJWs" and twisting things around so somehow they are suddenly victims of non-straight character appearing in media. I completely agree that sexuality is rarely relevant for a piece of fiction and the character in question, however it does feel good to see natural inclusion of homosexuality in popular culture. Accept it, it won't go away.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Did Cryptic draw special attention to Trevana and B'Eler when they released House Pegh? Did they brag about it, hoping it'd cause discussions like these? (Not that the discussions didn't happen anyway, but whatever.)
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
The media circus aside, the actual depiction was well done. I do not approve of the attention grabbing, but it still feels good if the result is well done (which Cryptic and Beyond did). I could care less why it was included ultimately. I "have" to watch straight romance in every squealin' movie be it fantasy, sci-fi or action regardless wether it is appropriate or not, most of the time it is extremely forced and shallow. Now if homosexual "romance" finds it's way in there that's a good thing
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Perfect demonstration of that point, how many people brag about the first televised homosexual kiss happening on DS9? The UK bet them by TWENTY YEARS and to be honest with you, nobody made a big deal of it at the time and as a result it was pretty much forgotten unless you know your TV trivia.
But then there is a fundamental difference in the political landscape where the UK is a lot more accepting. Even your right wing nutjobs seem to draw the line at homophobia. It is rather curious how it has seemingly vanished over the past few decades, although it still is ever present in certain groups away from politics.
These were found via a quick google search:
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5
Example 6: Directly from George Takei
Now I appreciate that for the most part, those articles are saying the same thing (which makes sense) but some are showing more, and different content than others, but the point is clear, that George was not entirely happy or agree with what they did, but is being polite about it. Simon Pegg, is showing the arrogance I saw in him when Shaun of the Dead was first released, and which always soured my opinion of him as a person (paradoxically, I really enjoy his writing and films, I'm just not a fan of him personally)
I haven't come across George's original comment on the topic, and I'm not going to waste my time trawling google for it, but I believe it was essentially a more strongly-worded version of his clarifying release.
Actually, that is true, but Sulu would still have been straight, because that's how Gene wrote him...
[Edit to add] I believe that in his first posting about the subject, he said that he had asked them not to do so (because he felt it would be better to create a new character)