Bowing out - Star Trek

[retlaw]

I've been a fan of Star trek, the wagon train to the stars all of my life. It began the year I was born and I've seen everything they have done. I knew sooner or later they would shove the gay agenda down my throat and I guess now is the time. The new Sulu will have a husband. The original Actor George Takei who is gay himself tried to talk them out of it. It's extremely low hanging fruit to choose Sulu just because George was gay but that's Hollywood.

I'll have to bow out. I would say I wish them luck but truthfully I hope their movie is a financial disaster. I'll have to bow out of most movies and television as time goes on but I'm not worried about that. I'll be better off. It's kind of sad seeing something that used to just be about fun turned into political crap.

 

[JustOneWay]

I've been a fan of Star trek, the wagon train to the stars all of my life. It began the year I was born and I've seen everything they have done. I knew sooner or later they would shove the gay agenda down my throat and I guess now is the time. The new Sulu will have a husband. The original Actor George Takei who is gay himself tried to talk them out of it. It's extremely low hanging fruit to choose Sulu just because George was gay but that's Hollywood.

I'll have to bow out. I would say I wish them luck but truthfully I hope their movie is a financial disaster. I'll have to bow out of most movies and television as time goes on but I'm not worried about that. I'll be better off. It's kind of sad seeing something that used to just be about fun turned into political crap.

Star Trek was on the cutting edge of social affairs from the start. A true lover of Star Trek would know this.

http://www.ibiblio.org/jwsnyder/wisdom/trek.html

 

[High Fidelity]

Star Trek was on the cutting edge of social affairs from the start. A true lover of Star Trek would know this.

http://www.ibiblio.org/jwsnyder/wisdom/trek.html

They even made men wear skirts for, I think, one episode(it was awful ).

But yeah, seems a bit odd since it's apparently to honour Takei and even he himself said whether it's well-intentioned or not, that's not the Sulu that was intended by the writer.

 

[FireDragon76]

"In response, however, Takei told that Hollywood Reporter that, far from being touched, he had urged Pegg and his team to rethink the decision, fearing that the sudden move did not honour the character as he was originally created, and sent a dubious message about whether people can suddenly change sexuality"

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/star-trek-beyond-george-takei-sulu-really-unfortunate

The character doesn't really reflect George Takei at all as a tribute, who has never been attracted to women, never been married to one, and never had any biological children. His is a typical gay story. Having Sulu have a child from a marriage doesn't fit in with that. If anything, it suggests a future of sexual fluidity or closetedness- things that will not honor George Takei's legacy at all as an openly gay man.

I would be more troubled by the basic vision of Star Trek, in its view of human nature, on Christian grounds. It's blind optimism in humanity is not really a Christian value. Still, it can be fun, but it doesn't come without its caveats.

 

[JustOneWay]

They even made men wear skirts for, I think, one episode(it was awful ).

But yeah, seems a bit odd since it's apparently to honour Takei and even he himself said whether it's well-intentioned or not, that's not the Sulu that was intended by the writer.

I agree. Traditionally, Star Trek really never touched too much on relationships, (except for Kirk's swinging lifestyle and Spock's need to mate every 7 years - Pon Farr) so it seems weird to do it now. My guess is that they take a minute to tell us about Sulu's partner and that is all it will be. Who knows?

I do like this reincarnation of Star Trek, and I prefer they stay away from the social issues of today, but these writers live in the real world too.

 

[redleghunter]

I've been a fan of Star trek, the wagon train to the stars all of my life. It began the year I was born and I've seen everything they have done. I knew sooner or later they would shove the gay agenda down my throat and I guess now is the time. The new Sulu will have a husband. The original Actor George Takei who is gay himself tried to talk them out of it. It's extremely low hanging fruit to choose Sulu just because George was gay but that's Hollywood.

I'll have to bow out. I would say I wish them luck but truthfully I hope their movie is a financial disaster. I'll have to bow out of most movies and television as time goes on but I'm not worried about that. I'll be better off. It's kind of sad seeing something that used to just be about fun turned into political crap.

Remember from the first "new" Star Trek movie this is an alternate universe or time line. So I guess they are saying Sulu is following an alternate life style in the alternate universe. In the original Star Trek Sulu liked Uhura and was straight.

Yet again that does not work either. Kirk in both time lines is a reckless womanizer. If they are going to change Sulu they need to change Kirk to a monogamous male with loads of children born in wedlock and Evangelical to boot. Hollywood would never go for that. But that would fit the mold of Gene Roddenbury of breaking social lines. It's no longer 'cool' to be white, male, family man and dare I say Christian. Now that would be groundbreaking for Star Trek. I dare them to show they are totally into social awareness.

Edit: They did change Spock's sexuality. In this alternate timeline he shows more emotion and is in steady relationship with Uhura. In the original timeline, he was a frigid Vulcan who only had marital relations once every 7 years and would fight to the death to avoid a divorce. You can't make this stuff up.

 

[retlaw]

I am well aware that Star Trek has been a forum to explore current social issues, not hating people because they are of a different race is a relevant AND Christian supported social issue. Many felt interracial marriage was a sin, but that was not supported by scripture and I never once heard a preacher claim it to be a sin. Homosexuality is not like those issues, it is incompatible with Christianity and being a "current social issue" I feared they would make it a theme. I guess I always knew it was coming.

We are not of this world. That becomes more clear to me every day.

 

[JustOneWay]

I knew sooner or later they would shove the gay agenda down my throat and I guess now is the time.

Don't say gay, say Takei!

 

[Archivist]

Having a gay character is not shoving the "gay agenda" down anyone's throat. A certain percentage of the population today identifies as being gay, why would that not be the case in the future? It is simply reflective of society.

 

[Albion]

IMHO, only the original series --thirty-nine episodes, wasn't it?--is the "real" Star Trek.

All the others are in the category of "The Wiz" as compared to the "Wizard if Oz." IOW, just an imaginative imitation. No, Captain Ahab doesn't go on to battle Godzilla at a later time; Tiny Tim doesn't grow up and become a happy husband and father; and Rhett Butler doesn't decide to move west to battle Indians.

 

[Archivist]

IMHO, only the original series --thirty-nine episodes, wasn't it?--is the "real" Star Trek.

All the others are in the category of "The Wiz" as compared to the "Wizard if Oz." IOW, just an imaginative imitation. No, Captain Ahab doesn't go on to battle Godzilla at a later time; Tiny Tim doesn't grow up and become a happy husband and father; and Rhett Butler doesn't decide to move west to battle Indians.

Much as I enjoyed TOS, I actually thought that The Next Generation was better. TOS was primarily centered around Kirk, Spock and McCoy. TNG was much more of an ensemble production. Just my opinion of course...

 

[Albion]

Much as I enjoyed TOS, I actually thought that The Next Generation was better. TOS was primarily centered around Kirk, Spock and McCoy. TNG was much more of an ensemble production. Just my opinion of course...

Yes, it was "better" in various ways, but it wasn't the same. That's just how I feel about this; most people are probably in your corner.

To me, that means that it was not actually Star Trek but a spin off, not the genuine article. That makes all of these second and third generation productions be less like the James Bond episodes and more like the movie remakes, sequels, and 'prequels' of "Jurassic Park," "3:10 to Yuma," and "Where the Boys Are."

 

[Sketcher]

Every one of the newer films was disappointing anyway.

 

[retlaw]

Having a gay character is not shoving the "gay agenda" down anyone's throat. A certain percentage of the population today identifies as being gay, why would that not be the case in the future? It is simply reflective of society.

I would classify it as shoving it down my throat by taking a character that was not gay and making them gay just to satisfy their need to "re-educate people like me". It would have been more legitimate had they introduced a new character who just happened to be gay, though I would still have had to bow out. BECAUSE, Other than the fact that Kirk was promisquous , sexuality was not the subject of this show. the show was about discovery and the struggle for survival. Those things are dramatic enough and universal in their understanding.

It seems About 95% of movies and television stories are mostly about sex. I grant that sex can be an interesting subject, but it's not THAT interesting. It also tells me the writers in Hollywood are utterly and completely devoid of imagination. Perhaps if they would quit smoking the medical weed and get out of Los Angeles for a while they would notice there is an entire world out there struggling to survive. Plenty of drama there.

 

[Armoured]

I would classify it as shoving it down my throat by taking a character that was not gay and making them gay just to satisfy their need to "re-educate people like me". It would have been more legitimate had they introduced a new character who just happened to be gay, though I would still have had to bow out. BECAUSE, Other than the fact that Kirk was promisquous , sexuality was not the subject of this show. the show was about discovery and the struggle for survival. Those things are dramatic enough and universal in their understanding.

It seems About 95% of movies and television stories are mostly about sex. I grant that sex can be an interesting subject, but it's not THAT interesting. It also tells me the writers in Hollywood are utterly and completely devoid of imagination. Perhaps if they would quit smoking the medical weed and get out of Los Angeles for a while they would notice there is an entire world out there struggling to survive. Plenty of drama there.

95%? Is your TV stuck on a inappropriate content channel or something?

 

[JustOneWay]

I would classify it as shoving it down my throat by taking a character that was not gay and making them gay just to satisfy their need to "re-educate people like me".

Wow. You realize it is a fiction movie, and the character Sulu is also fictional, right? Do you also realize you are under no obligation to watch the movie, right?

How do you know Sulu was not gay? He never mentioned it.

Plenty of drama there.

Indeed. Such drama over fiction.

I am sitting here LOL'ing that nobody questions how a ship can travel multiple times faster that light through space and transport people across the galaxy even faster on that same beam of light, but question whether or not a character should be gay/.

 

[revanneosl]

What is is with the Right's obsession with having things shoved down their throats?

 

[JustOneWay]

What is is with the Right's obsession with having things shoved down their throats?

Especially when in this case, nothing is being shoved down anybody's throat!

It is a movie that none of us are required to watch, and no law was made to force us to watch.

 

[Albion]

Freedom has always been an important issue with Conservatives. Enforced conformity is the virtue valued by their opponents.

 

[revanneosl]

Enforced conformity with gender-role stereotypes?