Da big *NEW TREK TV SHOW* thread!

14748505253101

Comments

  • mustrumridcully0
    mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,958 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    The reaction in this thread is the very reason why I think it's right to advertise that a character in a new show is homsexual.

    There are still people that think that this is some cheap method to get interest.
    That means people still treat it as something special and noteworthy and something they think is pandering to a certain group.

    If they keep doing it regularly and for many future shows, maybe at some point it will be as ordinary as the information that, say, a character in a new sitcom is married with children, or that a character is a 20 something single looking for the love of his life, or that a character is the oldest child of 3 siblings with two chaotic but loving parents.
    Then the LBGT (or whatever the correct sequence of letters is) community will have succeeded, except no one will notice, because there is no LBGT community - just people, as odd or ordinary as everyone else.

    The thing that I really wonder about is his exobiolgogical specialty. How will this play into the show?
    I don't think that... At All!! Why are people incapable of reading anything I write, without taking the exact opposite interpretation of what I mean, and go to great lengths to explain?? Is there an issue with my use of English, or the way I express myself?? Am I not sufficiently clear in the expression of my opinions??
    Keep your posts shorter and focused?

    All I read is that someone is arguing about whether or not mentioning sexuality is important / problematic whatever. If people are still arguing about it, we aren't at the equality point yet.

    And yes, there are people who think this is a cheap method for getting interest: Brian Fuller being one of them, because he is the one employing the tactic... And all the time the tactic works, then it is...
    It still works because people still make a fuss about it, and consider it something special. That means there is still no full acceptance of homosexuality. If they had written: "The main character of the cast has blue eyes", peole would have been a bit confused that it would be mentioned in the first place but no one would say it's a marketing
    Perhaps the expertise on fungi will have something to do with Elachi, or a food-based reason... Perhaps his quarters will be full with exotic samples... No point in speculating until (if) TRIBBLE is actually released, and folks can see for themself...
    Maybe they finally find a more unusual villain perhaps? Instead of some sapient Fungi species - how about an interestellar travelling non-intelligent Fungus that threatens ecosystems? Command & Conquers Tiberium always made me interested in the concept of a non-sapient lifeform that somehow travelled through space naturally and would alter or destroy other planet's ecosystems. The Zerg or Tyranid are somewhat similar, but they are clearly intelligent.

    Imagine if a few Federation and Klingon worlds would suddenly face the same biological and natural threat... (Or maybe the threat isn't that natural - maybe due to illegal smuggling or another third party, the fungus is spread around).


    Oh, well, that probably won't be it.

    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • starswordc
    starswordc Member Posts: 10,951 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    angrytarg wrote: »
    dalolorn wrote: »
    @jonsills He does have a point. Highlighting the character's sexuality like this is unlikely to help with the underlying problem, and is more useful as a PR stunt than anything else - exposing it during the story, letting it come out naturally in its own way, would be a much more dignified solution.
    (...)

    If I may offer another point of view - I would agree from a mere storytelling/character presenting POV. However, homosexual characters in popular culture shows is a real life issue. Announcing that the show will include not only a homosexual actor but also a homosexual role helps the minority in question to feel recognized. Which is quite a bit when there are people ticking out at the very mention of your nature as if you have done something wrong. Of course the way it is done is very important, I for example still cosnider Beyond's take unlucky but for different reasons. But once you are told that by merely mentioning you include a group in a completely natural process (a state we simply haven't reached yet, as a society) you are "catering" to anybody, it hurts. Your experiences may vary of course.​​

    Making a group (any group, be it minority/majority) feel represented, is important on many different levels, from support, to engagement... I can't express that sentiment any more directly or succinctly...

    But what Fuller has done, is neither of those things...

    He has 'played the g.ay card' as an advertising campaign (pretty much the only one, because this is one of the only things which has been repeatedly referenced by Fuller in his little 'announcements') As a cishetscum(I know that's how a particular demographic views me) viewer, I have no problem with g.ay characters and actors being involved with the project, and frankly, I think the inclusion of is way over-due... What I take exception to, is Fuller riding on that to try and leverage interest for the series, and IMHO, it is wrong...

    They're using it i) to draw attention, and ii) as a way of virtue signalling... It's slack, sloppy and lazy... If the character's sexuality really wasn't a Big Deal (which it isn't) Fuller wouldn't mention it Every Time he made an announcement... He's the one treating it like a Big Deal, rather than something which people should just treat as an irrelevance... He's the one doing that, by drawing attention to it... IDIC would dictate nothing more than presentation of the character with no more focussing on the fact, or making announcement of it than any other character... (such as Salvatore in Madmen...) It should naturally come out through the course of engaging the story, or not at all -- certainly not be used as a PR grabber (and anything announced pre-release is done as a PR grabber) to try and generate interest...

    This
    Is
    SpartaStar Trek!

    They could release Star Trek:Janitors, and the community would likely still watch it! They don't need to use sexualities as a way of getting interest, the interest is (or at least, was) already there in the franchise itself...

    My issue (in terms of this, and other conversations) is having to continually reiterate, repeat and re-brand my thoughts, so they can be understood by someone who is incapable of understanding my perspective, and who seems to make deliberate efforts to continually misinterpret what I say, either to be deliberately contrary, or simply dismissive of my input, for the only reason that They don't 'get it'... Frankly, it's exhausting, and, unlike my namesake character, I have not been schooled by a Vulcan Master, and like any other human being, I simply aim to be engaged with with a modicum of respect, and to have my views reasonably considered by my peers, rather than being continually judged and challenged for making statements which someone else fails to grasp the tone of... Like any other human being, my patience has limits, and yesterday, that limit was reached...

    Except they're not trying to attract the existing Trekkie community, because just like with the Abrams films, they know that the existing Trekkie community will either watch it because it's Star Trek, or not watch it and b*tch about it not being their Trek (or watch it so they can b*tch about it, as the case may be). They're trying to expand the viewership for Discovery beyond the traditional fans so that the show is more profitable, and like good marketers do, they're using anything and everything they've got to do so. I don't necessarily agree with this approach -- like you said, I would prefer seeing underrepresented demographics presented in a way that normalizes their involvement instead of using it as a big shiny sign -- but I can see the practical reason for it. They're not thinking any further than getting a few extra people to buy CBS and Netflix subscriptions.

    And by the way? I'm the Aspie in this conversation, not Jon.
    "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"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • marcusdkane
    marcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    angrytarg wrote: »
    To achieve euality, groups have to be recognized first. We're not there yet, not in the US and espeically not worldwide. But showing the world that everyone can be part of popular cultural media and be represented adequately is a small but important step to undertake.​​
    And as above, in what way are you not being recognized? Are you not allowed to vote, or get married? I'm sorry, but this isn't the 19th century anymore, those social values are no longer enforced, so yes, there is recognition, what remains (and what remains to be dealt with) is prejudice, and that is going to take a massive overhauling of the mainstream media to accomplish...

    Targ's German so no. Even civilised countries can still have legal discrimination against g.ay people. They're not a protected class in America for instance. Equal marrage still isn't recognised across the entirety of the UK or in Germany. Australia doesn't have it at all.

    G.ay people are often lumped in with women or ethnic minorities but those two groups are protected classes in most civilised countries and (outside of the US anyway) a lot of sociatal iszues have gone away with protection and equality laws.
    Isn't g.ay marriage legal in Germany? Damn, I did not know that, and am genuinely sorry to hear it :( Everyone has the right to get married to the person they love, no exceptions...
  • marcusdkane
    marcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    daveyny wrote: »
    Rather than forcing people to change their attitudes, methinks it would be wonderful and a step in the right direction if we could just get them to be a tad less vocal.

    There are many things in the world I dislike, but my moral compass keeps me from going out of my way to inform others, in a not so nice fashion, of those dislikes...

    Perhaps rather than forcing everybody to be rigidly PC, we take the first step of just getting folks to be pleasant to each other on a daily basis.

    Get everybody to acknowledge the fact that each and everyone of us can easily be an a-s-s-hole, but today we CHOOSE not to.

    B)

    Amen B)
  • marcusdkane
    marcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    angrytarg wrote: »
    dalolorn wrote: »
    @jonsills He does have a point. Highlighting the character's sexuality like this is unlikely to help with the underlying problem, and is more useful as a PR stunt than anything else - exposing it during the story, letting it come out naturally in its own way, would be a much more dignified solution.
    (...)

    If I may offer another point of view - I would agree from a mere storytelling/character presenting POV. However, homosexual characters in popular culture shows is a real life issue. Announcing that the show will include not only a homosexual actor but also a homosexual role helps the minority in question to feel recognized. Which is quite a bit when there are people ticking out at the very mention of your nature as if you have done something wrong. Of course the way it is done is very important, I for example still cosnider Beyond's take unlucky but for different reasons. But once you are told that by merely mentioning you include a group in a completely natural process (a state we simply haven't reached yet, as a society) you are "catering" to anybody, it hurts. Your experiences may vary of course.​​

    Making a group (any group, be it minority/majority) feel represented, is important on many different levels, from support, to engagement... I can't express that sentiment any more directly or succinctly...

    But what Fuller has done, is neither of those things...

    He has 'played the g.ay card' as an advertising campaign (pretty much the only one, because this is one of the only things which has been repeatedly referenced by Fuller in his little 'announcements') As a cishetscum(I know that's how a particular demographic views me) viewer, I have no problem with g.ay characters and actors being involved with the project, and frankly, I think the inclusion of is way over-due... What I take exception to, is Fuller riding on that to try and leverage interest for the series, and IMHO, it is wrong...

    They're using it i) to draw attention, and ii) as a way of virtue signalling... It's slack, sloppy and lazy... If the character's sexuality really wasn't a Big Deal (which it isn't) Fuller wouldn't mention it Every Time he made an announcement... He's the one treating it like a Big Deal, rather than something which people should just treat as an irrelevance... He's the one doing that, by drawing attention to it... IDIC would dictate nothing more than presentation of the character with no more focussing on the fact, or making announcement of it than any other character... (such as Salvatore in Madmen...) It should naturally come out through the course of engaging the story, or not at all -- certainly not be used as a PR grabber (and anything announced pre-release is done as a PR grabber) to try and generate interest...

    This
    Is
    SpartaStar Trek!

    They could release Star Trek:Janitors, and the community would likely still watch it! They don't need to use sexualities as a way of getting interest, the interest is (or at least, was) already there in the franchise itself...

    My issue (in terms of this, and other conversations) is having to continually reiterate, repeat and re-brand my thoughts, so they can be understood by someone who is incapable of understanding my perspective, and who seems to make deliberate efforts to continually misinterpret what I say, either to be deliberately contrary, or simply dismissive of my input, for the only reason that They don't 'get it'... Frankly, it's exhausting, and, unlike my namesake character, I have not been schooled by a Vulcan Master, and like any other human being, I simply aim to be engaged with with a modicum of respect, and to have my views reasonably considered by my peers, rather than being continually judged and challenged for making statements which someone else fails to grasp the tone of... Like any other human being, my patience has limits, and yesterday, that limit was reached...

    Except they're not trying to attract the existing Trekkie community, because just like with the Abrams films, they know that the existing Trekkie community will either watch it because it's Star Trek, or not watch it and b*tch about it not being their Trek (or watch it so they can b*tch about it, as the case may be). They're trying to expand the viewership for Discovery beyond the traditional fans so that the show is more profitable, and like good marketers do, they're using anything and everything they've got to do so. I don't necessarily agree with this approach -- like you said, I would prefer seeing underrepresented demographics presented in a way that normalizes their involvement instead of using it as a big shiny sign -- but I can see the practical reason for it. They're not thinking any further than getting a few extra people to buy CBS and Netflix subscriptions.

    And by the way? I'm the Aspie in this conversation, not Jon.
    Sure they want to attract new fans to the franchise, but, I think you'll find there are already a whole lot of g.ay Star Trek fans ;)

    And I'm pretty sure Jon has previously said on-forum that he's on the AS Spectrum...
  • marcusdkane
    marcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    The reaction in this thread is the very reason why I think it's right to advertise that a character in a new show is homsexual.

    There are still people that think that this is some cheap method to get interest.
    That means people still treat it as something special and noteworthy and something they think is pandering to a certain group.

    If they keep doing it regularly and for many future shows, maybe at some point it will be as ordinary as the information that, say, a character in a new sitcom is married with children, or that a character is a 20 something single looking for the love of his life, or that a character is the oldest child of 3 siblings with two chaotic but loving parents.
    Then the LBGT (or whatever the correct sequence of letters is) community will have succeeded, except no one will notice, because there is no LBGT community - just people, as odd or ordinary as everyone else.

    The thing that I really wonder about is his exobiolgogical specialty. How will this play into the show?
    I don't think that... At All!! Why are people incapable of reading anything I write, without taking the exact opposite interpretation of what I mean, and go to great lengths to explain?? Is there an issue with my use of English, or the way I express myself?? Am I not sufficiently clear in the expression of my opinions??
    Keep your posts shorter and focused?

    All I read is that someone is arguing about whether or not mentioning sexuality is important / problematic whatever. If people are still arguing about it, we aren't at the equality point yet.

    Oh by choice, I would... :D But when people constantly (intentionally or otherwise) misconstrue what I write, dissect it, and then make arguments as if I've said something completely different to what I've written, then exposition is required to clarify those misconceptions...

    And if that's all you're getting from my posts, then I'm clearly not communicating my point adequately :-\ Because it's not what is mentioned that I take issue with, but the fact that it's being seen as a way of getting interest (and thus perpetuating that aforementioned status-quo) that's what I take exception to, and don't like to see, because as I said, it's a lazy, sloppy way of courting interest/attention to a project in an unnecessary way, rather than focussing on any of the other multitude of questions the fanbase has for the series...
    Maybe they finally find a more unusual villain perhaps? Instead of some sapient Fungi species - how about an interestellar travelling non-intelligent Fungus that threatens ecosystems? Command & Conquers Tiberium always made me interested in the concept of a non-sapient lifeform that somehow travelled through space naturally and would alter or destroy other planet's ecosystems. The Zerg or Tyranid are somewhat similar, but they are clearly intelligent.

    Imagine if a few Federation and Klingon worlds would suddenly face the same biological and natural threat... (Or maybe the threat isn't that natural - maybe due to illegal smuggling or another third party, the fungus is spread around).


    Oh, well, that probably won't be it.
    It would definitely be an interesting notion if the focus was to be on a more 'force of nature' challenge, as opposed to a physical enemy... I'd certainly be interested to see something of that nature explored B)
  • marcusdkane
    marcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    daveyny wrote: »
    Thank you, Mustrumridcully...



    Can we PLEASE keep the personal chit to a minimum...

    It would be extremely irritating to have to restart this particular topic in a new thread.
    Especially since I've been keeping this one up to date for quite a while now both for easy access to DISCOVERY'S production history and as a kinda-sorta tribute to the OP, who was an interesting character in his own way and was around here for quite awhile.


    Also, marcus, you might want to stop taking everything people post as a direct personal insult, it's just a Star Trek Forum, not a continual attack on your EGO.
    Take a breath dude.


    As far as the particular topic at hand goes, I'm almost sorry I brought it up...
    But remember, the guy who created this Trek offshoot is G A Y himself, and made a big deal out of the fact that he was being all-inclusive with this show, so why would anybody expect anything less with the descriptions of the characters.


    BTW, We're Star Trek Fans, we of all people should be the most tolerant of an "all-inclusive" crew.

    Let's spend our time discussing what the new character's might bring to the continuing history of the Trek Universe, not debating the merits of their sexuality.



    Besides, Lt. Stamets might just end up being a really ... 'fungi' ... while doing his job onboard the ship.


    B)

    (let it be known, I was the first around here to go there)
    Sorry I missed this earlier... But as I said, when someone is specifically responding to points I make, continually challenging my opinions and perspectives, often with completelly a55-backwards logic and statements, then those definitely are attacks on my point of view... Ego has nothing to do with it; I don't consider my opinions as unquestionable, but when opinions are simply being shot-down with attempts to disprove/disqualify, then that isn't a conversation, or questioning, but an argument for no reason other than to be contrary, and that, is what my tolerance for has now expired... I'm happy to discuss anything with anyone... I'm not happy to waste time arguing when no quantum of understanding will be reached... I hope rhat clarifies my thoughts B)
  • marcusdkane
    marcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    azrael605 wrote: »
    I would just like to say that as a mixed- Lakota with an Irish first name & a Danish last name I am happy to see the Asian captain with a Greek last name.
    It'll be interesting to see what culture is portrayed, and hopefully more faithfully than was done with Chakotay B)
  • legendarylycan#5411
    legendarylycan#5411 Member Posts: 36,950 Arc User
    Command & Conquers Tiberium always made me interested in the concept of a non-sapient lifeform that somehow travelled through space naturally and would alter or destroy other planet's ecosystems.

    tiberium is not naturally introduced to any planet's ecosystem - it's deliberately seeded by the scrin​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents
    #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."
    "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.
  • mustrumridcully0
    mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,958 Arc User
    Command & Conquers Tiberium always made me interested in the concept of a non-sapient lifeform that somehow travelled through space naturally and would alter or destroy other planet's ecosystems.

    tiberium is not naturally introduced to any planet's ecosystem - it's deliberately seeded by the scrin​​

    Yeah, but we learned that only later :)
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • starkaos
    starkaos Member Posts: 11,547 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    Okay, so it's terrible if an existing character (like, say, Sulu) is retconned to be either g.ay or bi, and it's terrible if a brand new g.ay character is introduced.

    Should Starfleet just install closets on all their ships and be done with it? Or is it only okay if they're female?​​

    The sexual orientation of George Takei's Sulu vs. John Cho's Sulu does bring up the debate about homosexuality being a choice vs. being born with it. The main characters in Star Trek 2009 are supposed to be copies of their original selves in TOS since the Kelvin Universe is supposed to be identical to the Prime Universe until Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Kelvin. So we have two people with identical DNA in two different realities that have one end up being straight while the other is g.ay or bi. Meaning that homosexuality is a choice if you assume that the Prime Universe and Kelvin Universe were the same until Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Narada. Of course, this point becomes meaningless if you assume that the Prime Universe and Kelvin Universe are parallel universes that are only similar before 2233.

    If Star Trek Beyond wanted to introduce a g.ay or bi character, then it would have been better to introduce a new character instead of retconning Sulu since it seems like he is only g.ay or bi for shock value instead of being a part of his identity.
  • wendysue53
    wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    okay. Thread has gotten too long to actually go back and read, so asking it now: Have they released the actual 'Pilot' episode yet or is it still just the Test Teaser?
  • wendysue53
    wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    Shuttle flies down to planet surface...
    Fog passes by as it skims just above the tips of the tree tops...
    Slowly it lands in a small clearing...
    Door opens...
    Revealing...


    Kermit?! o.O
  • wendysue53
    wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    b8c98a9c0a01d326970266211c12d352.jpg
  • artan42
    artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    starkaos wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    Okay, so it's terrible if an existing character (like, say, Sulu) is retconned to be either g.ay or bi, and it's terrible if a brand new g.ay character is introduced.

    Should Starfleet just install closets on all their ships and be done with it? Or is it only okay if they're female?

    The sexual orientation of George Takei's Sulu vs. John Cho's Sulu does bring up the debate about homosexuality being a choice vs. being born with it. The main characters in Star Trek 2009 are supposed to be copies of their original selves in TOS since the Kelvin Universe is supposed to be identical to the Prime Universe until Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Kelvin. So we have two people with identical DNA in two different realities that have one end up being straight while the other is g.ay or bi. Meaning that homosexuality is a choice if you assume that the Prime Universe and Kelvin Universe were the same until Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Narada. Of course, this point becomes meaningless if you assume that the Prime Universe and Kelvin Universe are parallel universes that are only similar before 2233.

    If Star Trek Beyond wanted to introduce a g.ay or bi character, then it would have been better to introduce a new character instead of retconning Sulu since it seems like he is only g.ay or bi for shock value instead of being a part of his identity.

    Sigh. We go through this every time.

    Both Sulu's would be Bi. The Prime version has canonically not had any love interests and the KT version is married to a man. If we take PT Sulu's brief observations of Uhura and Vixis as anything more than interest then he's shown passing interest in females.

    I don't know why anybody still finds this complicated a it's been spelt out over and over again since the info from BEY was released.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    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!
  • angrytarg
    angrytarg Member Posts: 10,812 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    The sexual orientation of George Takei's Sulu vs. John Cho's Sulu does bring up the debate about homosexuality being a choice vs. being born with it. (...)

    I'm sorry, but amongst what kind of idiots did such a "debate" come up after this?​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ 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
  • mustrumridcully0
    mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,958 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    Okay, so it's terrible if an existing character (like, say, Sulu) is retconned to be either g.ay or bi, and it's terrible if a brand new g.ay character is introduced.

    Should Starfleet just install closets on all their ships and be done with it? Or is it only okay if they're female?​​

    The sexual orientation of George Takei's Sulu vs. John Cho's Sulu does bring up the debate about homosexuality being a choice vs. being born with it. The main characters in Star Trek 2009 are supposed to be copies of their original selves in TOS since the Kelvin Universe is supposed to be identical to the Prime Universe until Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Kelvin. So we have two people with identical DNA in two different realities that have one end up being straight while the other is g.ay or bi. Meaning that homosexuality is a choice if you assume that the Prime Universe and Kelvin Universe were the same until Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Narada. Of course, this point becomes meaningless if you assume that the Prime Universe and Kelvin Universe are parallel universes that are only similar before 2233.

    If Star Trek Beyond wanted to introduce a g.ay or bi character, then it would have been better to introduce a new character instead of retconning Sulu since it seems like he is only g.ay or bi for shock value instead of being a part of his identity.
    They didn't want to introduce a character. They had all the characters they needed, and they added a new attribute that we were not aware before.

    And in the end, the Kelvin Timeline is a mess and cannot be said to be fully consistent - even up until the Kelvin incident - with the previous series and films. IIRC, Kirk had an older brother, and he seems non-existent in the KT. The ages of characters don't really seem to match, either. So all we know is that these people have gotten names and are in similar roles as the original timeline, but they might be biologically different.


    I think the "nature vs nuture" thing thing is a red herring anyway. It shouldn't matter to our acceptance if it is a concious choice or whether it's genetically programmed, the result of the food you ate as a child or your education or whatever.

    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • marcusdkane
    marcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    Okay, so it's terrible if an existing character (like, say, Sulu) is retconned to be either g.ay or bi, and it's terrible if a brand new g.ay character is introduced.

    Should Starfleet just install closets on all their ships and be done with it? Or is it only okay if they're female?

    The sexual orientation of George Takei's Sulu vs. John Cho's Sulu does bring up the debate about homosexuality being a choice vs. being born with it. The main characters in Star Trek 2009 are supposed to be copies of their original selves in TOS since the Kelvin Universe is supposed to be identical to the Prime Universe until Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Kelvin. So we have two people with identical DNA in two different realities that have one end up being straight while the other is g.ay or bi. Meaning that homosexuality is a choice if you assume that the Prime Universe and Kelvin Universe were the same until Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Narada. Of course, this point becomes meaningless if you assume that the Prime Universe and Kelvin Universe are parallel universes that are only similar before 2233.

    If Star Trek Beyond wanted to introduce a g.ay or bi character, then it would have been better to introduce a new character instead of retconning Sulu since it seems like he is only g.ay or bi for shock value instead of being a part of his identity.

    Sigh. We go through this every time.

    Both Sulu's would be Bi. The Prime version has canonically not had any love interests and the KT version is married to a man. If we take PT Sulu's brief observations of Uhura and Vixis as anything more than interest then he's shown passing interest in females.

    I don't know why anybody still finds this complicated a it's been spelt out over and over again since the info from BEY was released.​​
    Canon is not everything... George Takei has clearly said that Gene wrote Sulu as being straight, and that he played him as being straight... That is the only opinion on the subject which matters, and it decisively answers the question... Not yours, not mine, but George Takei's. He gets 'the final say', and you need to stop thinking otherwise...

    So yes, it has been very clearly spelled out since before BEY was released, by the one man on the planet most qualified to adress the issue...
  • marcusdkane
    marcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    Okay, so it's terrible if an existing character (like, say, Sulu) is retconned to be either g.ay or bi, and it's terrible if a brand new g.ay character is introduced.

    Should Starfleet just install closets on all their ships and be done with it? Or is it only okay if they're female?​​

    The sexual orientation of George Takei's Sulu vs. John Cho's Sulu does bring up the debate about homosexuality being a choice vs. being born with it. The main characters in Star Trek 2009 are supposed to be copies of their original selves in TOS since the Kelvin Universe is supposed to be identical to the Prime Universe until Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Kelvin. So we have two people with identical DNA in two different realities that have one end up being straight while the other is g.ay or bi. Meaning that homosexuality is a choice if you assume that the Prime Universe and Kelvin Universe were the same until Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Narada. Of course, this point becomes meaningless if you assume that the Prime Universe and Kelvin Universe are parallel universes that are only similar before 2233.

    If Star Trek Beyond wanted to introduce a g.ay or bi character, then it would have been better to introduce a new character instead of retconning Sulu since it seems like he is only g.ay or bi for shock value instead of being a part of his identity.
    They didn't want to introduce a character. They had all the characters they needed, and they added a new attribute that we were not aware before.

    And in the end, the Kelvin Timeline is a mess and cannot be said to be fully consistent - even up until the Kelvin incident - with the previous series and films. IIRC, Kirk had an older brother, and he seems non-existent in the KT. The ages of characters don't really seem to match, either. So all we know is that these people have gotten names and are in similar roles as the original timeline, but they might be biologically different.


    I think the "nature vs nuture" thing thing is a red herring anyway. It shouldn't matter to our acceptance if it is a concious choice or whether it's genetically programmed, the result of the food you ate as a child or your education or whatever.
    The boy Jim drives by was his older brother (or at least was intended as being) Although the dialogue was re-dubbed, it's easy to lip-read that he calls the other boy 'Sam' (Jim was the only person who called his older brother Sam) and for some reason, that a55-hat JJ haad it re-dubbed (perhaps they couldn't get the rights to use the character of George 'Sam' Kirk...)

    Your earlier observation, that the KT is an inconsistent mess, is 100% spot-on accurate... B)
  • artan42
    artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    And in the end, the Kelvin Timeline is a mess and cannot be said to be fully consistent - even up until the Kelvin incident - with the previous series and films. IIRC, Kirk had an older brother, and he seems non-existent in the KT. The ages of characters don't really seem to match, either. So all we know is that these people have gotten names and are in similar roles as the original timeline, but they might be biologically different.

    His brother appears in the first film as the unnamed child Kirk drives past. Kirk, McCoy, Spock, and Scotty are the only characters that were ever given an age in the original series and Chekhov is certainly a new character but as neither Uhura or Sulu have a given age, they cannot be said to be new.
    Canon is not everything... George Takei has clearly said that Gene wrote Sulu as being straight, and that he played him as being straight... That is the only opinion on the subject which matters, and it decisively answers the question... Not yours, not mine, but George Takei's. He gets 'the final say', and you need to stop thinking otherwise...

    So yes, it has been very clearly spelled out since before BEY was released, by the one man on the planet most qualified to adress the issue...

    Each and every time :/ ...

    Behind the scenes stuff do not count. They may to you, and feel free to, but Takei's interpretation has been overwritten by direct onscreen canon evidence proving that he was mistaken.
    I know you have no interest in canon but that does not invalidate it or mean it should be ignored. The final say belongs to the people writing, directing, and producing the ST universe as we see it, you need to stop thinking otherwise.
    Sulu is the property of CBS and Paramount and his story is theirs to to write as they wish. Sulu does not belong to Takei nor to Roddenberry (not anymore anyway) and his motivations for the character are now Cho's.

    I respect actors portrayals (because I can see you misunderstanding what I've written) however their characters belong to their writers, not their actors.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    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!
  • marcusdkane
    marcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    artan42 wrote: »
    Canon is not everything... George Takei has clearly said that Gene wrote Sulu as being straight, and that he played him as being straight... That is the only opinion on the subject which matters, and it decisively answers the question... Not yours, not mine, but George Takei's. He gets 'the final say', and you need to stop thinking otherwise...

    So yes, it has been very clearly spelled out since before BEY was released, by the one man on the planet most qualified to adress the issue...

    Each and every time :/ ...

    Behind the scenes stuff do not count. They may to you, and feel free to, but Takei's interpretation has been overwritten by direct onscreen canon evidence proving that he was mistaken.
    I know you have no interest in canon but that does not invalidate it or mean it should be ignored. The final say belongs to the people writing, directing, and producing the ST universe as we see it, you need to stop thinking otherwise.
    Sulu is the property of CBS and Paramount and his story is theirs to to write as they wish. Sulu does not belong to Takei nor to Roddenberry (not anymore anyway) and his motivations for the character are now Cho's.

    I respect actors portrayals (because I can see you misunderstanding what I've written) however their characters belong to their writers, not their actors.​​

    Yes, each and every time, because Each and Every time, You Are Wrong... It's that simple...

    Don't you dare say I have no interest in canon! I have the utmost respect for canon, as well as the utmost respect for the men and women who wrote that canon and brought it to life! Don't you f*cking dare say I 'have no interest in canon'! >_< >_<

    George Takei's interpretation has not been over-written, because John Cho's interpretation takes place in an alternate reality... KT Sulu may be g.ay or bi, but that doesn't retcon Prime Sulu, because Alternate Reality...

    You say characters belong to their writers, not their actors... I could make a case (which I'm sure I already have) from direct personal conversation with an actress, who's input was the majority creative force behind her character's development...

    Another argument against that argument, is that Valeris was only created*, because Meyer could not have Saavik as being the traitor (despite being her originating writer) because Gene would not allow it... Meyer argued about this with Gene days before his death...

    But I'm not going to use that argument...

    I'm going to take your own argument, and use it against you:

    You say:
    however their characters belong to their writers, not their actors.​​

    Okay...

    Gene said that Sulu was straight. Gene was the writer, that was his character, and that was his opinion... So Sulu was not g.ay, nor bi, but straight: Because that is what his writer said...

    Now Gene may not be with us any more, but his opinion has been shared with us, by the man who worked with him, and collaborated with him over the portrayal of Sulu, for longer than you have been alive, so please, explain precisely what makes you think that your opinion, in any way supersedes or disproves his...


    *Meyer also originally wanted Kim Cattrall to play Saavik, but she was unavailable, so the role went to Kirsty Alley, then Robin Curtis... In the end, we got to see Kim Cattrall as a Vulcan, and, she created Valeris' name... But hey, actors don't contribute to, or get a say in, their characters... ;)
  • wendysue53
    wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    see my question was ignored. as for the rest...
    angrytarg wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    The sexual orientation of George Takei's Sulu vs. John Cho's Sulu does bring up the debate about homosexuality being a choice vs. being born with it. (...)

    I'm sorry, but amongst what kind of idiots did such a "debate" come up after this?​​

    WHY?! is the sexual orientation of ANYONE on or off the show being discussed? It is probably the most pointless discussion I've run into involving Star Trek.

    Sexual Orientation is both Genetic, Environmental, and Acclimatization as well as a few other things. This is a discussion that can't be won by the science group, the fan group, or the haters. It doesn't matter which timeline, or alternate reality, or clone, or replica, or synthetic, or andriod, or etc. version of Sulu you use or Kirk, or anyone else.

    Under the right set of circumstances, you'd all be same-sex oriented. It's just another way to call one group of humans "other" in order to dehumanize them. Because, if they aren't human, then you don't have to treat them as human. Look at what happened with Pygmys (which aren't called that anymore). People used to eat them.

    And I'm not going to bother with the stats on that, since it'd just lead to a different argument. Men and women have the same sensory organs, just in slightly different areas due to permutation of the fetus.

    I now remember why I stopped reading this thread... it was pointless. The title leads people to believe it was discussing the "New Show", not someones else's past-time OFF THE SHOW! Which, in this case especially, is irrelevent and useless as a discussion, IF the discussion is concerning Sulu IN Star Trek, and not something else.

    Damn, it's sounds like a frigging 'Stars' magazine.

    I actually TRIED to read the rest of this thread...

    It really does need to be closed by @jodarkrider or one of the others. It doesn't really have anything to DO with STARTREK....

    And now we get to hear someone compaining about this post.

    ...yay...
  • wendysue53
    wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    Now...

    Have they released the Pilot yet?

    Or even a full preview, instead of the test film?
  • wendysue53
    wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    It's a yes or no question.

    :neutral:
  • marcusdkane
    marcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    Now...

    Have they released the Pilot yet?

    Or even a full preview, instead of the test film?

    They haven't filmed the pilot yet, let alone released it... I don't believe they're even finished casting (or at least, that's the impresion I've got from Fuller's releases on the subject...)
  • daveyny
    daveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    see my question was ignored. as for the rest...
    angrytarg wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    The sexual orientation of George Takei's Sulu vs. John Cho's Sulu does bring up the debate about homosexuality being a choice vs. being born with it. (...)

    I'm sorry, but amongst what kind of idiots did such a "debate" come up after this?​​

    WHY?! is the sexual orientation of ANYONE on or off the show being discussed? It is probably the most pointless discussion I've run into involving Star Trek.

    Sexual Orientation is both Genetic, Environmental, and Acclimatization as well as a few other things. This is a discussion that can't be won by the science group, the fan group, or the haters. It doesn't matter which timeline, or alternate reality, or clone, or replica, or synthetic, or android, or etc. version of Sulu you use or Kirk, or anyone else.

    Under the right set of circumstances, you'd all be same-sex oriented. It's just another way to call one group of humans "other" in order to dehumanize them. Because, if they aren't human, then you don't have to treat them as human. Look at what happened with Pygmies (which aren't called that anymore). People used to eat them.

    And I'm not going to bother with the stats on that, since it'd just lead to a different argument. Men and women have the same sensory organs, just in slightly different areas due to permutation of the fetus.

    I now remember why I stopped reading this thread... it was pointless. The title leads people to believe it was discussing the "New Show", not someone else's past-time OFF THE SHOW! Which, in this case especially, is irrelevant and useless as a discussion, IF the discussion is concerning Sulu IN Star Trek, and not something else.

    Damn, it's sounds like a frigging 'Stars' magazine.

    I actually TRIED to read the rest of this thread...

    It really does need to be closed by @jodarkrider or one of the others. It doesn't really have anything to DO with STARTREK....

    And now we get to hear someone complaining about this post.

    ...yay...

    I will gladly complain about your post...

    No it doesn't need to be closed.

    I've spent several months updating it every time some new information or rumor hits the internetz and I don't wish for all that work and effort to be curtailed and lost to the forum winds.

    Yes, the conversation has drifted off the rails several times, but I have managed to return it to the topic at hand every time.

    If you don't like where it's going, then help me direct it back to a less confrontational direction, instead of adding to the cacophony of discord.



    Such as.....




    Is CBS the real problem with "Star Trek: Discovery's" launch???

    One interesting opinion...


    http://moviepilot.com/p/star-trek-discovery-bryan-fuller-cbs-villain/4161210

    What do you think?


    Alex Kurtzman also recently gave an interview about the show...

    http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/12/05/star-trek-discovery-producer-alex-kurtzman-very-excited-about-casting-of-michelle-yeoh-doug-jones-and-anthony-rapp



    It just dawned on me that the actor playing the new trek alien, is the same one who played Abe Sapien in the "Hellboy" movies.

    B)
    Post edited by daveyny on
    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
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • wendysue53
    wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    daveyny wrote: »
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    see my question was ignored. as for the rest...
    angrytarg wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    The sexual orientation of George Takei's Sulu vs. John Cho's Sulu does bring up the debate about homosexuality being a choice vs. being born with it. (...)

    I'm sorry, but amongst what kind of idiots did such a "debate" come up after this?​​

    WHY?! is the sexual orientation of ANYONE on or off the show being discussed? It is probably the most pointless discussion I've run into involving Star Trek.

    Sexual Orientation is both Genetic, Environmental, and Acclimatization as well as a few other things. This is a discussion that can't be won by the science group, the fan group, or the haters. It doesn't matter which timeline, or alternate reality, or clone, or replica, or synthetic, or andriod, or etc. version of Sulu you use or Kirk, or anyone else.

    Under the right set of circumstances, you'd all be same-sex oriented. It's just another way to call one group of humans "other" in order to dehumanize them. Because, if they aren't human, then you don't have to treat them as human. Look at what happened with Pygmys (which aren't called that anymore). People used to eat them.

    And I'm not going to bother with the stats on that, since it'd just lead to a different argument. Men and women have the same sensory organs, just in slightly different areas due to permutation of the fetus.

    I now remember why I stopped reading this thread... it was pointless. The title leads people to believe it was discussing the "New Show", not someones else's past-time OFF THE SHOW! Which, in this case especially, is irrelevent and useless as a discussion, IF the discussion is concerning Sulu IN Star Trek, and not something else.

    Damn, it's sounds like a frigging 'Stars' magazine.

    I actually TRIED to read the rest of this thread...

    It really does need to be closed by @jodarkrider or one of the others. It doesn't really have anything to DO with STARTREK....

    And now we get to hear someone compaining about this post.

    ...yay...

    I will gladly complain about your post...

    No it doesn't need to be closed.

    I've spent several months updating it every time some new information or rumor hits the internetz and I don't wish for all that work and effort to be curtailed and lost to the forum winds.

    Yes, the conversation has drifted off the rails several times, but I have managed to return it to the topic at hand every time.

    If you don't like where it's going, then help me direct it back to a less confrontational direction, instead of adding to the cacophony of discord.



    Such as.....




    Is CBS the real problem with "Star Trek: Discovery's" launch???

    One interesting opinion...


    http://moviepilot.com/p/star-trek-discovery-bryan-fuller-cbs-villain/4161210

    What do you think?
    B)

    Thanks, mate! Good info is always desired! o:)
  • wendysue53
    wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    Now...

    Have they released the Pilot yet?

    Or even a full preview, instead of the test film?

    They haven't filmed the pilot yet, let alone released it... I don't believe they're even finished casting (or at least, that's the impresion I've got from Fuller's releases on the subject...)

    good to know. :)
  • marcusdkane
    marcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    daveyny wrote: »



    Such as.....




    Is CBS the real problem with "Star Trek: Discovery's" launch???

    One interesting opinion...


    http://moviepilot.com/p/star-trek-discovery-bryan-fuller-cbs-villain/4161210

    What do you think?

    I have real doubts about this project ever coming to fruition... I think Marc Zicree's Space Command is further forward than TRIBBLE (and he has donors questioning where their money is being used and when anything will be released...)
This discussion has been closed.