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)
(...)
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)
On this part, I agree with you. As ashrod pointed out above, British Media has been treating homosexuality as perfectly normal fr years (there was virtually no publicisation of Jack Harkness' bisexuality, despite it being fairly obvious) and it has been very subtle and not 'loud'. The British public are acclimated to it, we don't particularly care. The US, however, seems to still have this love affair with 'affirmative action' - the idea that the best way to generate acceptance for minorities is to give it more exposure than the status quo, rather than equal or proportional exposure (which, ironically, has often been demonstrated to have the exact opposite effect). I do believe Beyond would have done far better not publicising Sulu's sexuality before the film's release. It was very clear, but very subtly managed in the film itself. Publicising it was just asking for backlash.
(...)
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)
On this part, I agree with you. As ashrod pointed out above, British Media has been treating homosexuality as perfectly normal fr years (there was virtually no publicisation of Jack Harkness' bisexuality, despite it being fairly obvious) and it has been very subtle and not 'loud'. The British public are acclimated to it, we don't particularly care. The US, however, seems to still have this love affair with 'affirmative action' - the idea that the best way to generate acceptance for minorities is to give it more exposure than the status quo, rather than equal or proportional exposure (which, ironically, has often been demonstrated to have the exact opposite effect). I do believe Beyond would have done far better not publicising Sulu's sexuality before the film's release. It was very clear, but very subtly managed in the film itself. Publicising it was just asking for backlash.
Absolutely so, I agree with you on all those points The one thing I would add, is a reminder to the point I made a page or so back, that Jack is also an example of needlesslyy retconning a character's sexuality, from his clear 'any hole's a goal' pansexuality throughout his Doctor Who/early Torchwood appearances, to his being full-on g.ay in Miracle Day, which IMHO detracted from the thing which made him a universally appealing character, and was also going directly against Barrowman's stated opinion of Jack...
The past 50 years of Star Trek and the Star Wars franchise disagree with you.
There are a number of people who feel that The Force Awakens is little more than a retelling of A New Hope. I'm not entirely convinced they're wrong.
For that matter, ST:TMP is a rehash of the TOS episodes "Obsession" and "The Changeling". And much of the first season of TNG rehashed TOS episodes, including one, "The Naked Now", that was a direct copy-paste of "The Naked Time".
I haven't got the patience to point out how many Trek plots are retreads of other Trek plots (save to note that it was fun when Q interacted with Sisko, because Sisko didn't have the time to indulge Q's little games). You could do the legwork yourself, were you of a mind to...
If it has no impact on the story and does not advance characterization, then please leave it out. Here is an example of why:
In the book Tom Sawyer, Tom and Huckleberry Finn spend a lot of time together, and this relationship is continued through sequels. I could easily assume Tom and Huck are experimenting when the writer skips over a time block. Mark Twain could even have written that into the book, (which would have never been published given the mores of the time,) but such a relationship would have had no impact on the story otherwise.
Sam Clemens did develop the relationship between Tom and Becky Thatcher in the denouement of Tom Sawyer as a part of demonstrating how Tom's youthful wildness evolves and mutates over time into maturity, which does impact the development of story and character.
Were the same book to be written today it might be that Tom and Huck are lovers and Becky is just a good friend who needed rescue from Native American Joe's cave where his treasured pre-Columbian artifacts were hidden to prevent their theft and sale on the black market. In this case, Tom and Huck's budding romance could be used rather than Becky's to close the book.
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
If it has no impact on the story and does not advance characterization, then please leave it out. Here is an example of why:
In the book Tom Sawyer, Tom and Huckleberry Finn spend a lot of time together, and this relationship is continued through sequels. I could easily assume Tom and Huck are experimenting when the writer skips over a time block. Mark Twain could even have written that into the book, (which would have never been published given the mores of the time,) but such a relationship would have had no impact on the story otherwise.
Sam Clemens did develop the relationship between Tom and Becky Thatcher in the denouement of Tom Sawyer as a part of demonstrating how Tom's youthful wildness evolves and mutates over time into maturity, which does impact the development of story and character.
Were the same book to be written today it might be that Tom and Huck are lovers and Becky is just a good friend who needed rescue from Native American Joe's cave where his treasured pre-Columbian artifacts were hidden to prevent their theft and sale on the black market. In this case, Tom and Huck's budding romance could be used rather than Becky's to close the book.
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
Sweet Jesus! I actually agree with everything you've said!
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
So basically all relationships of a character, whether friendship straight or otherwise are to be kept as implications and innuendo unless absolutely necessary for the plot?
Sounds like a narrow world with no world building going on. Unless you're just playing the card where it's specifically g.ay romantic relationships you want kept as inferred whereas platonic and straight ones can be out in the open at all times are they are in close to 100% of all media.
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
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
So basically all relationships of a character, whether friendship straight or otherwise are to be kept as implications and innuendo unless absolutely necessary for the plot?
Sounds like a narrow world with no world building going on. Unless you're just playing the card where it's specifically g.ay romantic relationships you want kept as inferred whereas platonic and straight ones can be out in the open at all times are they are in close to 100% of all media.
[sarcasm]Naturally, I stated it as an inalterable absolute. One should always assume any statement made should apply in every case, especially when it clearly does not.[/sarcasm]
My definition and yours of what is absolutely necessary for a story are quite obviously different, and were you and I to write the exact same story, (say we both witnessed an auto accident and were writing about it,) we would emphasize completely different details. It is for the writer to decide what to include in his work. I stated my on opinion what I want to read, not an authoritarian discourse on what I will allow in fiction writing.
In my given example, had Mark Twain written about Tom and Becky's relationship without making it an important plot point I would have the same issue: irrelavent, distracting, and pandering. It has nothing to do with social bias and everything to do with creating the kind of fiction I enjoy reading.
Your final sentence displays your bias far more clearly than it does mine. I chose the Huck/Becky contrast as an example with which the majority of readers of English will be familiar, not as an example of which kinds of relationships should be allowed, and I then said,
Were the same book to be written today it might be that Tom and Huck are lovers and Becky is just a good friend...
You are entitled to your views, whatever they may be. You are not entitled to re-write my views so you can then denegrate me based on what you wrote.
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
So basically all relationships of a character, whether friendship straight or otherwise are to be kept as implications and innuendo unless absolutely necessary for the plot?
Sounds like a narrow world with no world building going on. Unless you're just playing the card where it's specifically g.ay romantic relationships you want kept as inferred whereas platonic and straight ones can be out in the open at all times are they are in close to 100% of all media.
Look at Superman for the longest time - did he "love" Lois, or was it a "game" or whatever?
I vaguely think it was the '80s, if not '90s, where Superman finally started "settling down" with Lois, even though it was then inferred that he "had a crush" on her the entire time and the usual "didn't want anyone to know because of how much trouble it would bring her yada yada..."
Every platonic, straight, or "fancy" relationship that's actually spelled out in the story is there because of "plot importance" - whether it was important to a special episode's plot, or a sub-plot, or whatever.
That's how the comics industry, or any means of entertainment should treat it. If Diana (Wonder Woman) encounters a situation where her relationship preferences need to be brought to light, then do so, freely. If she's gonna have no relationships and yet you're gonna blather about her status... why bother?
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
The past 50 years of Star Trek and the Star Wars franchise disagree with you.
There are a number of people who feel that The Force Awakens is little more than a retelling of A New Hope. I'm not entirely convinced they're wrong.
For that matter, ST:TMP is a rehash of the TOS episodes "Obsession" and "The Changeling". And much of the first season of TNG rehashed TOS episodes, including one, "The Naked Now", that was a direct copy-paste of "The Naked Time".
I've heard the same being said of SW6 too. So it's not exactly a new thing for the franchise.
On this part, I agree with you. As ashrod pointed out above, British Media has been treating homosexuality as perfectly normal fr years (there was virtually no publicisation of Jack Harkness' bisexuality, despite it being fairly obvious) and it has been very subtle and not 'loud'. The British public are acclimated to it, we don't particularly care. The US, however, seems to still have this love affair with 'affirmative action' - the idea that the best way to generate acceptance for minorities is to give it more exposure than the status quo, rather than equal or proportional exposure (which, ironically, has often been demonstrated to have the exact opposite effect). I do believe Beyond would have done far better not publicising Sulu's sexuality before the film's release. It was very clear, but very subtly managed in the film itself. Publicising it was just asking for backlash.
I think the difference is that the equal rights side really hasn't got a solid victory yet on this side of the Atlantic, whether it's on LGBT rights or racial equality. There's still a politically powerful and very vocal minority here in the States that is opposed to granting any rights at all to LGBTs, and in fourteen states you could still get arrested for sodomy as late as 2003 (which was when SCOTUS finally ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional). And I live in North Carolina, where the General Assembly set off a string of huge legal fights just in the past four years by passing voting restrictions openly targeted against black and Latino voters (if for no other reason than because they tend to vote for the other major party), never mind the whole HB2 hullabaloo this year.
So Stateside, I look at it from a considerably different perspective from you Brits. I see it as Star Trek and other speculative fiction carrying on the tradition of directly challenging the "good old days". As the song says, "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems" (thank you, Billy).
The past 50 years of Star Trek and the Star Wars franchise disagree with you.
There are a number of people who feel that The Force Awakens is little more than a retelling of A New Hope. I'm not entirely convinced they're wrong.
It is a retelling of A New Hope, but not solely the final theatrical version: they took bits and pieces of several different development drafts of the script and threw them in a blender. E.g. one version had the female Skywalker or Starkiller twin be the main protagonist, from whence we get Rey. And the new X-Wings are taken directly from early concept art.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
On this part, I agree with you. As ashrod pointed out above, British Media has been treating homosexuality as perfectly normal fr years (there was virtually no publicisation of Jack Harkness' bisexuality, despite it being fairly obvious) and it has been very subtle and not 'loud'. The British public are acclimated to it, we don't particularly care. The US, however, seems to still have this love affair with 'affirmative action' - the idea that the best way to generate acceptance for minorities is to give it more exposure than the status quo, rather than equal or proportional exposure (which, ironically, has often been demonstrated to have the exact opposite effect). I do believe Beyond would have done far better not publicising Sulu's sexuality before the film's release. It was very clear, but very subtly managed in the film itself. Publicising it was just asking for backlash.
I think the difference is that the equal rights side really hasn't got a solid victory yet on this side of the Atlantic, whether it's on LGBT rights or racial equality. There's still a powerful and very vocal minority here in the States that is opposed to granting any rights at all to LGBTs, and in fourteen states you could still get arrested for sodomy as late as 2003 (which was when SCOTUS finally ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional). And I live in North Carolina, where the General Assembly set off a string of huge legal fights just in the past four years by passing voting restrictions openly targeted against black and Latino voters (if for no other reason than because they tend to vote for the other major party), never mind the whole HB2 hullabaloo this year.
So Stateside, I look at it from a considerably different perspective from you Brits. I see it as Star Trek and other speculative fiction carrying on the tradition of directly challenging the "good old days". As the song says, "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems" (thank you, Billy).
The past 50 years of Star Trek and the Star Wars franchise disagree with you.
There are a number of people who feel that The Force Awakens is little more than a retelling of A New Hope. I'm not entirely convinced they're wrong.
It is a retelling of A New Hope, but not solely the final theatrical version: they took bits and pieces of several different development drafts of the script and threw them in a blender. E.g. one version had the female Skywalker or Starkiller twin be the main protagonist, from whence we get Rey. And the new X-Wings are taken directly from early concept art.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good. Take the scene in DS9 between Dax and Dr Khan, for example. It was pretty obvious and pretty clear what the message was, but transmitting the message was left to the episode itself. With Beyond, they revealed they were sending the message before anyone even saw the film and deliberately drew attention to it, which only made people more closed to recieving that message, because the people who were still open to the message after that twitte post are the same people who would have been open either way, while many people who would have been open to it otherwise are now closed because, by and large, people don't like being preached to. That, and announcing it like that was just asking for backlash. If you're going to send a pro-equality message, let that message speak for itself, don't speak for it.
BTW, I've studied US Civil Rights for my. A-Level, and what I've seen with regards to affirmative action (the practice of giving preferential treatment to minorities, also known as 'positive discrimination'), that policy has only served to generate resentment and strengthen resistance to civil equality, not address it.
My definition and yours of what is absolutely necessary for a story are quite obviously different, and were you and I to write the exact same story, (say we both witnessed an auto accident and were writing about it,) we would emphasize completely different details. It is for the writer to decide what to include in his work. I stated my on opinion what I want to read, not an authoritarian discourse on what I will allow in fiction writing.
And? You stated your opinion, that does not shield you from counter opinions or critique of said opinion.
You've specifically excluded one particular feature from all others as being superfluous to backstory for no real reason without also providing a counterpoint, such as deciding all romantic relationships are unworthy of backstory or world building.
With no reason for that it's left as a highly selective exclusion.
In my given example, had Mark Twain written about Tom and Becky's relationship without making it an important plot point I would have the same issue: irrelavent, distracting, and pandering. It has nothing to do with social bias and everything to do with creating the kind of fiction I enjoy reading.
And? What does that have to do with Wonder Woman or Star Trek? You've quoted an example of, not something you like in the circumstances it exists, but as a standard.
Characters require depth and motivation, they require personality and most of all, relationships to other characters. Writers are never told to only leave to inference relationships to other characters unless there is a plot related reveal (Vader is Luke's father BTW) except in the case of g.ay characters.
I'm specifically using ST as an example for the reason we're on a ST forum, so how was the enormous plot diversion that Chekov was straight (when the alien woman kicked him out of her quarters) for you? Too on the nose? Pushing an agenda?
Every platonic, straight, or "fancy" relationship that's actually spelled out in the story is there because of "plot importance" - whether it was important to a special episode's plot, or a sub-plot, or whatever.
That's how the comics industry, or any means of entertainment should treat it. If Diana (Wonder Woman) encounters a situation where her relationship preferences need to be brought to light, then do so, freely. If she's gonna have no relationships and yet you're gonna blather about her status... why bother?
Really? I don't think you've seen any media then. off hand minutia is how a world is developed and how we have characters and not archetypes. Things happen that are not related to the plot that flesh out the world because it sells the story to the consumer.
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've not rewrite any of your views. There is no strawmanning going on, only a summary
This statement is factually incorrect. You said,
So basically all relationships of a character, whether friendship straight or otherwise are to be kept as implications and innuendo unless absolutely necessary for the plot?
Sounds like a narrow world with no world building going on. Unless you're just playing the card where it's specifically g.ay romantic relationships you want kept as inferred whereas platonic and straight ones can be out in the open at all times are they are in close to 100% of all media.
I said,
If it has no impact on the story and does not advance characterization, then please leave it out.
The observant will recognize that the two statements are not different ways of saying the same thing. You have rewritten what I said so that you could then denigrate me for something I do not and have never believed. The proof of this is when you then infer that I specifically have an agenda regarding what kind of sex is acceptable in fiction, even though I explicitly stated in my post,
Were the same book to be written today it might be that Tom and Huck are lovers and Becky is just a good friend...
which directly contradicts your later assertion that I wanted a particular brand of romance to remain in the dark. It is clear that you either failed to actually read my post before replying to it, or that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said for your own purposes.
Word building can help characterization and advance the plot, but does not always do so. An extreme example of this can be found in Gormengast, in which nothing much happens in one of the most fantastic worlds ever created in fiction. (If you can find a copy, do read it.) So the real question here is, does the information advance the story through plot or characterization? (Note that characterization of the world, or 'world building,' is still characterization.) If it is only included for the sake of 'inclusiveness,' then it is a divergence from the point of the story, and ultimately only distracts from the story. Such inclusions are nothing more than pandering to a specific audience by the author. It may make the author feel enlightened and readers of that particular bent might think it shows open-mindedness, but it is actually a lowest common denominator gimmick.
If you want to read or write stories which include people of whatever kind you like, go right ahead. I am not anti- anyone. If you want to ship your favorite characters you are likewise free to do so. You are not entitled to re-write the opinions of others to make them appear to be bigots simply because they do not blindly conform to your world view.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment
Comments
>_>
~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)
On this part, I agree with you. As ashrod pointed out above, British Media has been treating homosexuality as perfectly normal fr years (there was virtually no publicisation of Jack Harkness' bisexuality, despite it being fairly obvious) and it has been very subtle and not 'loud'. The British public are acclimated to it, we don't particularly care. The US, however, seems to still have this love affair with 'affirmative action' - the idea that the best way to generate acceptance for minorities is to give it more exposure than the status quo, rather than equal or proportional exposure (which, ironically, has often been demonstrated to have the exact opposite effect). I do believe Beyond would have done far better not publicising Sulu's sexuality before the film's release. It was very clear, but very subtly managed in the film itself. Publicising it was just asking for backlash.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
For that matter, ST:TMP is a rehash of the TOS episodes "Obsession" and "The Changeling". And much of the first season of TNG rehashed TOS episodes, including one, "The Naked Now", that was a direct copy-paste of "The Naked Time".
In the book Tom Sawyer, Tom and Huckleberry Finn spend a lot of time together, and this relationship is continued through sequels. I could easily assume Tom and Huck are experimenting when the writer skips over a time block. Mark Twain could even have written that into the book, (which would have never been published given the mores of the time,) but such a relationship would have had no impact on the story otherwise.
Sam Clemens did develop the relationship between Tom and Becky Thatcher in the denouement of Tom Sawyer as a part of demonstrating how Tom's youthful wildness evolves and mutates over time into maturity, which does impact the development of story and character.
Were the same book to be written today it might be that Tom and Huck are lovers and Becky is just a good friend who needed rescue from Native American Joe's cave where his treasured pre-Columbian artifacts were hidden to prevent their theft and sale on the black market. In this case, Tom and Huck's budding romance could be used rather than Becky's to close the book.
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
So basically all relationships of a character, whether friendship straight or otherwise are to be kept as implications and innuendo unless absolutely necessary for the plot?
Sounds like a narrow world with no world building going on. Unless you're just playing the card where it's specifically g.ay romantic relationships you want kept as inferred whereas platonic and straight ones can be out in the open at all times are they are in close to 100% of all media.
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!
[sarcasm]Naturally, I stated it as an inalterable absolute. One should always assume any statement made should apply in every case, especially when it clearly does not.[/sarcasm]
My definition and yours of what is absolutely necessary for a story are quite obviously different, and were you and I to write the exact same story, (say we both witnessed an auto accident and were writing about it,) we would emphasize completely different details. It is for the writer to decide what to include in his work. I stated my on opinion what I want to read, not an authoritarian discourse on what I will allow in fiction writing.
In my given example, had Mark Twain written about Tom and Becky's relationship without making it an important plot point I would have the same issue: irrelavent, distracting, and pandering. It has nothing to do with social bias and everything to do with creating the kind of fiction I enjoy reading.
Your final sentence displays your bias far more clearly than it does mine. I chose the Huck/Becky contrast as an example with which the majority of readers of English will be familiar, not as an example of which kinds of relationships should be allowed, and I then said,
You are entitled to your views, whatever they may be. You are not entitled to re-write my views so you can then denegrate me based on what you wrote.
Look at Superman for the longest time - did he "love" Lois, or was it a "game" or whatever?
I vaguely think it was the '80s, if not '90s, where Superman finally started "settling down" with Lois, even though it was then inferred that he "had a crush" on her the entire time and the usual "didn't want anyone to know because of how much trouble it would bring her yada yada..."
Every platonic, straight, or "fancy" relationship that's actually spelled out in the story is there because of "plot importance" - whether it was important to a special episode's plot, or a sub-plot, or whatever.
That's how the comics industry, or any means of entertainment should treat it. If Diana (Wonder Woman) encounters a situation where her relationship preferences need to be brought to light, then do so, freely. If she's gonna have no relationships and yet you're gonna blather about her status... why bother?
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
My character Tsin'xing
So Stateside, I look at it from a considerably different perspective from you Brits. I see it as Star Trek and other speculative fiction carrying on the tradition of directly challenging the "good old days". As the song says, "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems" (thank you, Billy).
It is a retelling of A New Hope, but not solely the final theatrical version: they took bits and pieces of several different development drafts of the script and threw them in a blender. E.g. one version had the female Skywalker or Starkiller twin be the main protagonist, from whence we get Rey. And the new X-Wings are taken directly from early concept art.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good. Take the scene in DS9 between Dax and Dr Khan, for example. It was pretty obvious and pretty clear what the message was, but transmitting the message was left to the episode itself. With Beyond, they revealed they were sending the message before anyone even saw the film and deliberately drew attention to it, which only made people more closed to recieving that message, because the people who were still open to the message after that twitte post are the same people who would have been open either way, while many people who would have been open to it otherwise are now closed because, by and large, people don't like being preached to. That, and announcing it like that was just asking for backlash. If you're going to send a pro-equality message, let that message speak for itself, don't speak for it.
BTW, I've studied US Civil Rights for my. A-Level, and what I've seen with regards to affirmative action (the practice of giving preferential treatment to minorities, also known as 'positive discrimination'), that policy has only served to generate resentment and strengthen resistance to civil equality, not address it.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
And? You stated your opinion, that does not shield you from counter opinions or critique of said opinion.
You've specifically excluded one particular feature from all others as being superfluous to backstory for no real reason without also providing a counterpoint, such as deciding all romantic relationships are unworthy of backstory or world building.
With no reason for that it's left as a highly selective exclusion.
And? What does that have to do with Wonder Woman or Star Trek? You've quoted an example of, not something you like in the circumstances it exists, but as a standard.
Characters require depth and motivation, they require personality and most of all, relationships to other characters. Writers are never told to only leave to inference relationships to other characters unless there is a plot related reveal (Vader is Luke's father BTW) except in the case of g.ay characters.
I'm specifically using ST as an example for the reason we're on a ST forum, so how was the enormous plot diversion that Chekov was straight (when the alien woman kicked him out of her quarters) for you? Too on the nose? Pushing an agenda?
I've not rewrite any of your views. There is no strawmanning going on, only a summary.
Really? I don't think you've seen any media then. off hand minutia is how a world is developed and how we have characters and not archetypes. Things happen that are not related to the plot that flesh out the world because it sells the story to the consumer.
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!
This statement is factually incorrect. You said,
I said,
The observant will recognize that the two statements are not different ways of saying the same thing. You have rewritten what I said so that you could then denigrate me for something I do not and have never believed. The proof of this is when you then infer that I specifically have an agenda regarding what kind of sex is acceptable in fiction, even though I explicitly stated in my post, which directly contradicts your later assertion that I wanted a particular brand of romance to remain in the dark. It is clear that you either failed to actually read my post before replying to it, or that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said for your own purposes.
Word building can help characterization and advance the plot, but does not always do so. An extreme example of this can be found in Gormengast, in which nothing much happens in one of the most fantastic worlds ever created in fiction. (If you can find a copy, do read it.) So the real question here is, does the information advance the story through plot or characterization? (Note that characterization of the world, or 'world building,' is still characterization.) If it is only included for the sake of 'inclusiveness,' then it is a divergence from the point of the story, and ultimately only distracts from the story. Such inclusions are nothing more than pandering to a specific audience by the author. It may make the author feel enlightened and readers of that particular bent might think it shows open-mindedness, but it is actually a lowest common denominator gimmick.
If you want to read or write stories which include people of whatever kind you like, go right ahead. I am not anti- anyone. If you want to ship your favorite characters you are likewise free to do so. You are not entitled to re-write the opinions of others to make them appear to be bigots simply because they do not blindly conform to your world view.
My character Tsin'xing