“He’s right, it is unfortunate, it’s unfortunate that the screen version of the most inclusive, tolerant universe in science fiction hasn’t featured an LGBT character until now," added Pegg. "We could have introduced a new **** character, but he or she would have been primarily defined by their sexuality, seen as the ‘**** character’, rather than simply for who they are, and isn’t that tokenism?”
They could've just introduced a new character, had him really shine in some way during the movie and save the main cast somehow, and only reveal to moviegoers that he's g.a.y at the end after his actions have already defined him. The crew would have always known in-universe, but they wouldn't have mentioned it because there's nothing wrong with it.
Well out of the main cast it could only really be Sulu if that's what they were determined to do. All of the others had had onscreen romances with women in the Prime and some in the Alternate universe. And other than Chekhov's age, there's little to no physical differences between the PR and AR characters and that would include sexuality.
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 think it will be more intersting what the new series has to offer. They apparently want to include some kind of LGBT character - will it be "The token LBGT character", or will it be a fully fledged character whose sexuality is just one aspect of him?
I think Sulu is already a bit beyond that, since we saw him fighting with a collapsible Katana and playing bridge screen poker with Khan - while that does not give him much personality per se, he's already an established bad TRIBBLE.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Lot's of new stuff from the JJ films. We found out Sulu was TRIBBLE. We found out Uhura's first name. We found out Spock can maintain a relationship. We found out Bones had a pre-Academy goatee.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
I think Sulu is already a bit beyond that, since we saw him fighting with a collapsible Katana and playing bridge screen poker with Khan - while that does not give him much personality per se, he's already an established bad ****.
And his response to being ordered to abandon ship was to activate the restraints in his bridge seat and politely tell his commanding officer to go to Hell.
Claiming a new LGBT character would be defined by this trait is already a sad statement and shows how little people know of how such a trait would define a characters actions. Protip: It doesn't. Simply use it like this:
Dire situation. Captain: "Do you have a family lieutenant?" - "A wife/husband and a son, sir." - "When this is all over you'll see them again, I promise." And that's it. You would never need to mention a LGBTs character's sexuality in any different way than a presumed straight one, and usually that is not at all. If you think you have to make a big announcement out of it you are already doing it wrong.
^ 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
I'm glad I know this ahead of time. Otherwise I would have had the same eyerollesque reaction as Spock and Uhura making out in the turbolift. As long as the execution isn't in poor taste, you know?
At least now we know what Simon Pegg meant when he said that this movie would be for a "slightly more enlightened audience."
Yeah it's the typical JJ Trek formula: make random action flick, set it in space, plaster some Star Trek-related words and images over the top of it, call it a Star Trek film and hope nobody notices that it really doesn't have anything to do with what made Star Trek "Star Trek" in the first place. Just this time, they did it by commandeering an aspect of George Takei's personal life and turned that into a "Star Trek nod".
Claiming a new LGBT character would be defined by this trait is already a sad statement and shows how little people know of how such a trait would define a characters actions. Protip: It doesn't. Simply use it like this:
Dire situation. Captain: "Do you have a family lieutenant?" - "A wife/husband and a son, sir." - "When this is all over you'll see them again, I promise." And that's it. You would never need to mention a LGBTs character's sexuality in any different way than a presumed straight one, and usually that is not at all. If you think you have to make a big announcement out of it you are already doing it wrong.
And that's almost certainly the way it's handled with Sulu in the movie. And you'd have the same folks handwringing about LGBT characters in a "family" entertainment, only this time with accusations of "the token g.ay guy" instead of "changing a beloved character" (that almost 50% of the people I've heard from couldn't have picked out of a lineup before).
Plus, I pretty much knew by the time I was 14 that I liked both sexes, and it was fun to think that one of the Trek crew was "inclined" in the same manner.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I'm very sad, vivienne, that you cannot embrace Gene's concept of IDIC - Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. While Gene would never have written an LGBT character (as he grew up in a very different time - many people fail to understand just how fast acceptance has progressed), I believe he would have found this very much in keeping with IDIC.
(That's Gene Coon, of course - he came up with most of the ideas and ideals in Trek. Roddenberry had kind of a vague idea where he was going with it, which mostly was to the bank with his checks.)
Actually I'm LGBT also. First, As a person if someone request something not to be done to there character that they spent their whole life being a part of. I would listen. Two, If I wanted to add a LGBT character I would add one to the script not necessarily a established character on television, print media including fiction, and magazine, and fan fiction. Third, I'm tired of people force feeding ideas or philosophies on others.
This.
ALL
OF
THIS!!!
Inserting new characters is pretty much a Star Trek movie staple...
Will Decker
Ilia ( )
Saavik
David Marcus
Sybok
Valeris
TNG did it too...
Lieutenant Hawk (arguably one of the best performances of the whole movie)
Lieutenant Daniels
Kell Perim
So absolutely no reason why they couldn't've done that in Beyond rather than retcon an established character...
That George Takei asked them not to do so, should have been reason enough for them to not do so... They claim that they did this to 'honor him', so why not 'honor him' by respecting his wishes
Hmmmm, so the asian guy is homossexual. That's racist...
It should be Kirk. Powetful statement right there.
Kirk. Adventurer. Hero. Ladies man.
Or is he?
New secret footage of Starfleets most famous starship captain brings into question whether his numerous first contact encounters with alien women were the only ones. Interviews with longtime crew members will shed light on the charismatic character, and answer such questions as:
-How was he so easily deceived by Khan Noonien Singh?
-Why did he insist that he be the one to fight Spock during the strapping Vulcan's battle for his fiance?
-Why did the crew stand by and say nothing while Kirk, as an active duty officer of Starfleet, so publicly flaunted his flings with visiting females?
Tonight, we will learn the truth behind James Kirks actions, and whether this "coming out" will mean that the men of the galaxy will need to watch out.
Tie those dresses and hold on to your belt buckles. It's Kirk Unleashed.
I don't see this as a retcon due to we never knew KT Sulu's sexual preference. In all honesty, why should we care. Sulu is a great character in KT, this doesn't change.
I don't see this as a retcon due to we never knew KT Sulu's sexual preference. In all honesty, why should we care. Sulu is a great character in KT, this doesn't change.
In principle it doesn't matter, the only thing that sticks out here is to of course make the character a homosexual whose long years actor was also a homosexual and who doesn't even appreciate the "honours" being done in his name. The whole thing is unfortunate.
And that's almost certainly the way it's handled with Sulu in the movie. And you'd have the same folks handwringing about LGBT characters in a "family" entertainment, only this time with accusations of "the token g.ay guy" instead of "changing a beloved character" (that almost 50% of the people I've heard from couldn't have picked out of a lineup before).
If they go with a subtle and uncomplicated line it's not as bad, but the fuss they already make (announcing it via twitter) is already enough.
I can't speak for every LGBT person out there, of course. But being treated this "special" everywhere mens it's still a long shot to natural treatment. Just write everything the way you would do for a straight character, there are not really any differnces here.
^ 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
Firstly, Op it wasn't JJ's idea from what I have read, it was Peggs and Lins idea. Pegg contacted Takei and apparently Takei thought they would be introducing a new character that was TRIBBLE, he was pretty disappointed when it turned out Sulu would be TRIBBLE.
Secondly, my opinion is this: As long as one of the main characters being TRIBBLE doesn't seem forced, or contrived, or thrown in at the last minute to pander, then I'm ok with it. My personal feeling on the LGBT rights movement are my personal feelings and I don't feel the need to justify that. But like I said, if it fits into the story, if its not overly blatant or just comes out of right field for no other reason than to say " OW LOOK THIS CHARACTER IS TRIBBLE NOW" then so be it.
I'm going to see BEYOND. I am going to enjoy BEYOND. Sulu being TRIBBLE is NOT going to affect my enjoyment of the movie one way or the other, plain and simple.
*************************** Fleet Admiral In charge of Bacon Fighting 5th Attack Squadron The Devils Henchman
No mention of him being straight either. It's a nod to Takei. Just let it go.
Takei, the original character and a long time advocate for TRIBBLE issues, doesn't like it, which should really tell you all you need to know about this move. This isn't about being inclusive, it's about shameless pandering, "Hey gays! Look, we have a TRIBBLE character! Come give us all your TRIBBLE money please!"
Takei is not the character, nor did he create the character, nor does he own the character, nor should he now or ever have any control over the character.
Replace 'Takei' with 'JJ Abrams' and 'character' with 'Star Trek', and I'll agree with you on every point.
Get your facts straight, JJ DID NOT make this film. Kind of pointless to discuss anything with someone who can't even pay attention to basic facts.
But just to point out, as Executive Producer JJ rightfully has a lot more control over the character and Trek in general than Takei ever has or ever will have.
JJ just **** it up. Like everything he touches.
He has made of the two of the most successful Trek films in financial terms. If you adjust them for inflation, Trek 09 is number 1 and Into Darkness is number 4. So, I guess if you compare them to other higher grossing films, he messed up.
(...)
But just to point out, as Executive Producer JJ rightfully has a lot more control over the character and Trek in general than Takei ever has or ever will have.
That's not a question of creative control, though. They write Sulu specifically to "honour Takei" which the "honoured" doesn't like, probably because he knows the implications this brings. It's simply not a elegant choice and they should at least have asked him beforehand, because that's not how you do this. Maybe this is how straight white men think they're open and doing something great, but...
^ 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
Comments
They could've just introduced a new character, had him really shine in some way during the movie and save the main cast somehow, and only reveal to moviegoers that he's g.a.y at the end after his actions have already defined him. The crew would have always known in-universe, but they wouldn't have mentioned it because there's nothing wrong with it.
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!
I think Sulu is already a bit beyond that, since we saw him fighting with a collapsible Katana and playing bridge screen poker with Khan - while that does not give him much personality per se, he's already an established bad TRIBBLE.
Sulu is pretty badass.
Lot's of new stuff from the JJ films. We found out Sulu was TRIBBLE. We found out Uhura's first name. We found out Spock can maintain a relationship. We found out Bones had a pre-Academy goatee.
well, at least until beyond
(and no, that wasn't a spoiler because it was in one of the beyond trailers)
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Dire situation. Captain: "Do you have a family lieutenant?" - "A wife/husband and a son, sir." - "When this is all over you'll see them again, I promise." And that's it. You would never need to mention a LGBTs character's sexuality in any different way than a presumed straight one, and usually that is not at all. If you think you have to make a big announcement out of it you are already doing it wrong.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
At least now we know what Simon Pegg meant when he said that this movie would be for a "slightly more enlightened audience."
He was just too dang swishy with that epee...
Plus, I pretty much knew by the time I was 14 that I liked both sexes, and it was fun to think that one of the Trek crew was "inclined" in the same manner.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
ALL
OF
THIS!!!
Inserting new characters is pretty much a Star Trek movie staple...
Will Decker
Ilia (
Saavik
David Marcus
Sybok
Valeris
TNG did it too...
Lieutenant Hawk (arguably one of the best performances of the whole movie)
Lieutenant Daniels
Kell Perim
So absolutely no reason why they couldn't've done that in Beyond rather than retcon an established character...
That George Takei asked them not to do so, should have been reason enough for them to not do so... They claim that they did this to 'honor him', so why not 'honor him' by respecting his wishes
It should be Kirk. Powetful statement right there.
Kirk. Adventurer. Hero. Ladies man.
Or is he?
New secret footage of Starfleets most famous starship captain brings into question whether his numerous first contact encounters with alien women were the only ones. Interviews with longtime crew members will shed light on the charismatic character, and answer such questions as:
-How was he so easily deceived by Khan Noonien Singh?
-Why did he insist that he be the one to fight Spock during the strapping Vulcan's battle for his fiance?
-Why did the crew stand by and say nothing while Kirk, as an active duty officer of Starfleet, so publicly flaunted his flings with visiting females?
Tonight, we will learn the truth behind James Kirks actions, and whether this "coming out" will mean that the men of the galaxy will need to watch out.
Tie those dresses and hold on to your belt buckles. It's Kirk Unleashed.
In principle it doesn't matter, the only thing that sticks out here is to of course make the character a homosexual whose long years actor was also a homosexual and who doesn't even appreciate the "honours" being done in his name. The whole thing is unfortunate.
If they go with a subtle and uncomplicated line it's not as bad, but the fuss they already make (announcing it via twitter) is already enough.
I can't speak for every LGBT person out there, of course. But being treated this "special" everywhere mens it's still a long shot to natural treatment. Just write everything the way you would do for a straight character, there are not really any differnces here.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Secondly, my opinion is this: As long as one of the main characters being TRIBBLE doesn't seem forced, or contrived, or thrown in at the last minute to pander, then I'm ok with it. My personal feeling on the LGBT rights movement are my personal feelings and I don't feel the need to justify that. But like I said, if it fits into the story, if its not overly blatant or just comes out of right field for no other reason than to say " OW LOOK THIS CHARACTER IS TRIBBLE NOW" then so be it.
I'm going to see BEYOND. I am going to enjoy BEYOND. Sulu being TRIBBLE is NOT going to affect my enjoyment of the movie one way or the other, plain and simple.
Fleet Admiral In charge of Bacon
Fighting 5th Attack Squadron
The Devils Henchman
Takei, the original character and a long time advocate for TRIBBLE issues, doesn't like it, which should really tell you all you need to know about this move. This isn't about being inclusive, it's about shameless pandering, "Hey gays! Look, we have a TRIBBLE character! Come give us all your TRIBBLE money please!"
Replace 'Takei' with 'JJ Abrams' and 'character' with 'Star Trek', and I'll agree with you on every point.
He has made of the two of the most successful Trek films in financial terms. If you adjust them for inflation, Trek 09 is number 1 and Into Darkness is number 4. So, I guess if you compare them to other higher grossing films, he messed up.
That's not a question of creative control, though. They write Sulu specifically to "honour Takei" which the "honoured" doesn't like, probably because he knows the implications this brings. It's simply not a elegant choice and they should at least have asked him beforehand, because that's not how you do this. Maybe this is how straight white men think they're open and doing something great, but...
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!