Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-36736006

I'm not sure about this; they are changing an integral character to match the life of the actor who originally played him. I think this is a travesty to the character who was the only real family man amongst the characters. George Takai is an awesome actor and he portrayed the character to the best of his acting ability; he did not force his sexuality on the character or rub it in the faces of the fans. I fear, as with almost all characters who "come out of the closet," that Sulu will become a much less dynamic character and his "sexuality" will take a prominent role in the character. I hope I'm wrong and they treat it like they did him being a family man in the original; kind of low-key, but there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I liked what George Takei said about Sulu:

Quote

Except Takei wasn't overjoyed. He had never asked for Sulu to be gay. In fact, he'd much prefer that he stay straight. "I’m delighted that there’s a gay character," he tells

The Hollywood Reporter. "Unfortunately, it’s a twisting of Gene’s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it’s really unfortunate."

George was an awesome actor and he did a superb job playing Sulu. I'm just worried as ByTor said earlier that this is could change the dynamic of the character and have the focus be on something else. It could stagnate development of the character but at the same time it may not. We will have to wait and see.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On July 8, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Wulfsbane said:

See, I liked what George Takei said about Sulu:

George was an awesome actor and he did a superb job playing Sulu. I'm just worried as ByTor said earlier that this is could change the dynamic of the character and have the focus be on something else. It could stagnate development of the character but at the same time it may not. We will have to wait and see.

 

I am with Takei on this when it comes the vision of Gene Rodenberry. It also makes me fear what other arbitrary changes they will pull off to make Star Trek "relevant" (pandering for attention rather than making solid story that really does not even focus on this subject).

It also puts Sulu in a PC vice and could even escalate him into Suedom in the pursuit of a bigger box office break, going for the real rather than the ideal. The basic rule of creative works: what you do to take in new fans will be what it takes to keep them. If the character has flaws, especially in his relationships, reactionaries could accuse Star Trek of subverting "progressive" ideals and "positive action for the LGBT community." Takei's solution is better but even still it would be subject to unrealistic expectations by a number of radical insatiate SJW's. This could end up being disrespectful to Roddenberry's tasteful subtle style when it came societal commentary (like his commentaries on racism and sociocentrism). 

 

The he first meeting with the Romulans in the series is a brilliant example of this. Does anyone remember that episode?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 7 months later...
  • 4 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 7 months later...
  • 1 year later...

 I am not a big fan of the NuTrek movies. Beyond has a cool scene with the Beastie boys Sabotage, blowing up all those small ships. But it does not feel like Star Trek. It just doesn't feel the same with Leonard Nemoy passing away.  I don't think they will be making another new movie ever, at least with the new Spock and Kirk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, IronCheeze said:

I am not a big fan of the NuTrek movies. Beyond has a cool scene with the Beastie boys Sabotage, blowing up all those small ships. But it does not feel like Star Trek. It just doesn't feel the same with Leonard Nemoy passing away.

I feel the same way, at least when it comes to the movies. While I did enjoy TNG as a series, the movie that features the characters from that series left me going "Meh."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2020 at 2:40 PM, MoKat said:

I feel the same way, at least when it comes to the movies. While I did enjoy TNG as a series, the movie that features the characters from that series left me going "Meh."

Oh yeah. I like the classic Star Trek movies much better. I like Kirk more than Picard, but I actually have not watched a lot of The Next Generation TV show. What episodes do you recommend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, some episodes are better than others of course. I suppose the pilot episode "Encounter at Farpoint" would be a good place to start because it introduces the main characters - including a re-occuring alien entity that calls itself "Q" who likes to mess with Picard :D

{Edit: as far as season 1 goes, I pretty much argee with this list at What Culture. I would have put Heart of Glory higher; then again I do like Klingons, so I'm probably biased :)}

Quote

1. Conspiracy
2. The Neutral Zone
3. Heart of Glory
4. Datalore
5. Encounter at Farpoint

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have a sneaking suspicion, after watching Deja Q, that Jim Parson, took influence from John Delancy's portrayal of Q, in his portrayl of Sheldon Cooper. I am not a fan of Big Bang Theory and its obnoxious 'nerd-face' but I could not help but make the connection, being academically interested in acting. Do you guys see it? It's very obvious in the turbolift scene in this aforementioned episode, compared with the BBT episode where Sheldon fails to drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As a person with ASD, I relate with Data. People are strangely surprised when they discover my faith and my more artistic perspectives, given how much, we’ll, like Data I am, very fact obsessed and coolminded I am. I always found that to be a deeply false causation, that idea that intelligence makes one irreligious. All the famous religionists are by nature scholars and philosophers. Humanism actually began in the church. Erasmus, Tyndall, Luther, Latimer, were all considered classical humanists. My hundreds of hours of college level eduction has lead me ironically to be more and more religious, especially my study of the brain.  It’s an organ so complex, that if it we’re to be simplified in order to be understandable, we would be able to do so. 🤣

I disagree with Gene Roddenberry on a lot of things, but even he was not the full gestalt of Star Trek’s ethos. With that said, I think he too deep down had a spiritual side which bubbled out here and there, but was not allowed to flourish in his sub-culture. I think his San Francisco culture enslaved him to a dogma of being militantly vague and anti-dogmatic and inarticulate in that regard sadly. It’s the same relativist naval-gazing culture that gave us Political-Elitists like Waters and Pelosi, power-pervs like Winestine, Scientology (Gene was actually a friend of Hubbard, last time I checked), and of course New Age snake oil peddlers like Goop. I find the humanism in season one and two of TNG to be really saccharine and silly sometimes, DS9 put a healthy water on that fire. It’s playful positive perspectives of capitalism would sober the perspective of any utopian socialist. I think the series overall had more nuance than some of his ideology’s perspective could grasp, much like any art, especially when so many writers are in the mix. A writer’s intentions are sacred to me, but I do think we create things with a richness of sub-conscience that soars above our current social situation, especially in one so flighty and fickly, hypocritically relativistic as upperclass (a nowadays frankly feudalistic) southern California. 
 

I fear we in the Sonic fandom have a bit of a problem in this regard too, at least in the 2000’s. I was reading one big name in the Satam fandom in there closing address to a fan site, I was moved by the fact they admitted there was a deeply troubled time for those who loved Sonic as they saw him. I think there is angsty time where things we love don’t go where want them to, and we either lash out and want things to stick a certain way, or we entrench ourselves. We let that extend beyond that mere fandom, because it’s ultimately the you part you want to entrench.  You make a “safe space” for adolescent ideas and such, a comfort zone in which we nest our fandom psychologically. I think that’s how a lot of fandoms get dogmatic corners and can be real weird, especially when forming identities like teens are involved.  But, to take back to Star Trek, I think that was Rodenberry’s experience too. He was rejected by Hollywood badly in the 70’s and bitter, but also wanted to belong in that circle to make his dreams come true. And when he had the opportunity, he tripped down and entrenched himself without much listening to other people, and still fearing specific cultural pressures. I think that’s what made TNG so bumpy on the early seasons, some people got hurt even. I think it’s what makes some parts on our fandom like that on Twitter so toxic too. 

In the end, I think we need to not be like Gene. We need to question our humanity more, embrace faith (because we all have it in the end), and  be intellectually brave with out ideas and sharing them. I think a lot of people in our fandom are alone together, much like certain creatives in Hollywood:
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...