Oh, so all Asians are gay in this universe?
-
CountJohn — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 01:21 PM)
I mean, you're dumb enough to think that that same 3 second scene is somehow intended to represent an entire ethnic group, so anything is possible.
You're complaining about PC and SJW's but this kind of petty grasping to find something racist in an innocuous scene is exactly the kind of thing they do. -
CountJohn — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 06:13 PM)
Says the guy defending a scene cause it's gay asians.
When did you beceome a telepath? I'm defending the scene because people being crybabies over tiny moments in movies is a growing phenomenon that needs to end immediately.
Sorry you got butt hurt, sjw punk.
I'm the furthest thing from an SJW. I posted a thread on the Into Darkness board making fun of the feminist freakout over Carol Marus changing clothes (which is every bit as dumb as what you're doing here) just recently. I'm just anti BS outrage over pointless crap. Go back to your safe space (which apparently has no gay Asians since that's a trigger for you for whatever reason) since you apparently can't handle a sub five second shot of two men hugging in a fictional movie. -
woozle_wuzzle — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 11:21 PM)
Seems like the only one triggered here is you judging by your meltdown. But do go on crying behind your wall of pseudo hipster nonsense while trying to hide your true agenda since apparently you're embarrassed by your own beliefs.
-
ReelReviews14 — 9 years ago(September 13, 2016 11:35 PM)
they are dumb enough to support a movie over a 3 second scene that has no relevance whatsoever to the plot? Wow, how childish.
The thing is, I DON'T think they were dumb enough to support this movie after the creative team threw a pointless 3 second "gay couple" scene in the movie to pander to them.
Most of the "LGBT community" who previously showed zero interest in Star Trek and were heaping praise on the "progress" of the franchise with the "gay Sulu" announcement were NOWHERE to be seen on this board the week that the film was ACTUALLY released in theaters.
A throwaway scene of two asian guys hugging wasn't enough to get them to financially support a sci-fi film that had nothing to do with gay couples, and I'd bet most of the "LGBT community" (who were screaming "bigot!" at anyone who objected to the lazy writing & Sulu's character assassination a week earlier) didn't even bother to buy a ticket to see the film in theaters. Furthermore, many people who ARE active in the "LGBT community", like Takei himself, were smart enough to put aside their need for a "gay character" and look the decision objectively to see that it was poorly shoehorned into the movie and a bottom of the barrel move because Simon Pegg simply didn't want to make the effort to create and flesh out his own three dimensional gay character.
Instead, they managed to alienate tons of loyal Star Trek fans who WERE interested in seeing this movie before, but had reached the end of their rope with "white British Khan" in the last movie and gave up on the franchise once "gay Sulu" was announced.
Bottom line, the "let's make a straight character suddenly gay so we can get a pat on the back for it" decision ended up hurting this movie a lot more than helping it. -
peteainsworth — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 07:21 AM)
Plenty of homophobic idiots on this thread to be sure.
Why can't people just live and let live?
Nobody is hurting anybody else at the end of the day in being gay or having a gay relationship.
Must be a pretty pathetic, barren and inadequate existence these losers have that they really think movies should or were boycotted because they dare to even elude to the existence of homosexuals in the future. Or they feel the need to put quote marks around groups that are a real part of society like the LGBT community like "reelreviews" has.
Sorry honey pie for existing like that. Must be a real downer for you! -
peteainsworth — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 01:58 AM)
I see we've got a real dense one here.
In order for me buy into the idea that showing only an Asian gay couple in this film was "racist" as you put it, I would surely have to buy into the idea there was something negative about being gay in the first place, wouldn't I?
As I thought anybody who read my post would of been able to glean in the first 2 seconds though, this is not the case. Therefore cries of racism are plainly ridiculous.
You really should be in the primate section of a zoo. You'd feel right at home with all the other knuckle draggers and I could come and throw bananas at you. -
ReelReviews14 — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 05:04 PM)
In order for me buy into the idea that showing only an Asian gay couple in this film was "racist" as you put it, I would surely have to buy into the idea there was something negative about being gay in the first place, wouldn't I?
Nope. Spock would note that your "logic" is pretty poor. For example, nobody would think there is something negative about being a math teacher. However, if you were to have a film that depicted EVERY asian character as a math teacher, the film would be criticized for negatively stereotyping asians as math teachers. -
peteainsworth — 9 years ago(September 26, 2016 02:12 AM)
For the record I googled the word stereotype. All it says is it means to over simply, pigeon hole or use cliched ideas to represent a person or thing. Nothing about whether it is good or bad. I could say for example "all children are completely innocent." It would be a stereotype, but I doubt most people would think that that is a bad thing to think about children, even if it is an over rused or stereotypical idea.
The key words here are negative and positive, and prefacing either before the word that follows it.
Now we've established your lack of basic reading comprehension or understanding of the English language, is there anything else you'd like to say?.