Would you say the same thing if they would have taken a well known homosexual character and made him hetro in the remake
-
Justice68 — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 01:36 PM)
The fact this is even a discussion shows how ridiculous Hollyweird has become in pushing their leftist politically correct agenda on us.
This reboot of the franchise has been ruined precisely because of this type of tripe among other reasons that include :
-J.J. Abrams is sh*t
-Bad writing - lack of imagination, in a similar vein to the new Star Wars being a rehash of the old films, massive plot holes
-Poor dialogue - unbelievable and unrealistc conversation between characters
-Overused CGI - Star Trek was never about big action
-No character attachment - No one cares about any of the characters
-Overt use of political correctness - Shoehorned female characters, forced romance relationships and unnecessary scenes where men have to 'listen' or take advisement from females (since when did Spock care what a bitch says?) in order to appease the psycho third wave feminists, lots of nonsensical insubordination and a myriad of other subliminal messaging.
But the most glaring thing about all this? Is that the 'gay' thing is over. We've been past that for almost twenty years now. The fact they felt the need to force it in now is pathetic.
What's next, Spock is transgender? -
debrecenisrac38 — 9 years ago(December 08, 2016 06:10 PM)
I start off with something, that will seem like something totally irrelevant: I liked the opening of Lie to me. Specifically the end of it, where the protagonist looks into the camera obscura.
Much like how things we seem to know as truth can be shrouded by culture, or other factors, and most of what we see is through the lens of the camera obscura, and nobody else can see it the same way.
In all of the topics concerned with the question, many said their piece about what they think it represents, but I've never seen mentioning the source, in this case, Cho himself. The scene is short, because they shot it in Dubai, a place both "famous" for its sex tourism and also about women being punished for getting raped (see, that's adultery for those guys). It should not surprise anyone they couldn't find an Asian actor to play the part, this being reason two, since it was played by Simon Pegg's co-writer.
Why Asian? Much like how the homophobic comments concentrate on the supposed natural order of things (except animals in tribal relations never get any, and one male gets all females, so our human societies are anything but natural), we might be racially and culturally insensitive at best.
While Takei defended Roddenberry's decision in the regard of Sulu, as an Asian gay person, with a longer history, than Cho's entire life, still did get it. The other reason for this inclusion was to show, that many cultures, and their views on anything out of the norm isn't as advanced as it is in most Western societies. The emphasis here is on anything they see out of the norm, which includes premarital sex. Speaking of which, I look forward to Joel Edgerton's new movie about their interracial marriage, and the same state, the one for lovers, was the same state, that until the 1990's has criminalized heterogeneous cohabitation while not being married. It was also an enforced law, not just something remaining on the books. 25 years after Star Trek launched. If there's any agenda, it's the one to start and catch up to the rest of the world.
Cho asked for including this story line both to honor Takei, and also to show Asian gay men, how they shan't be ashamed about how they actually feel and act, as they're no lesser, than anybody else. It can be discussed, that Sulu wasn't the best choice, but that would overshadow the fact, just how much progress some are willing to take. Star Trek fans themselves accepted a balding captain, and an android, but a black commander started a racist campaign, and when Janeway came around, the death threats came along with it, that was less than 25 years ago. As for Nyota Uhura, sure, her character wasn't as fleshed out as with later generations, but she wasn't a maid, a staple for black women in that era's television.
Last, but not least: George Takei is Japanese American, John Cho isn't. In the Star Trek world, nationalities doesn't mean that much, but in our world, many are blind who claim Hollywood is liberal. Nowhere is it more apparent, then with non-Anglo-Saxon characters (so this includes white people too), that casting directors go with whomever they think fits. It could have been Masi Oka, who is a major Star Trek fan. Yet it isn't because they don't care. Many have sharp ears for "this is not the right accent around here", yet would not have the slightest idea, that the actor who played the father of Nia Vardalos in My big fat Greek wedding, played the father of Michael Keaton in My Life, and on that occasion, a Russian.
When the camera obscura was invented, it was meant, among others, to block out unnecessary things, so that a painter can see more clearly in detail. 4 centuries later some use their own eyes to focus on a part of major significance to a group they share no culture with, and that alone is enough for them to not watch it, and create the idea of the illusion, that it equals a major economic force, it doesn't. Most of the American films co-produced with Chinese companies are always a bigger hit there, and that market alone makes the film profitable. In this context, the Chinese are the Ferrengi and America is the Cardassian Empire, pre-Dominion War.
I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Esher. -
kyliesca — 9 years ago(December 18, 2016 09:27 AM)
I agree, the uproar and whole controversy about Sulu being gay in this movie is silly when you consider just how insignificant and subtle that little detail was in the actual movie itself. All of Sulu's homosexuality only amounted to just a few seconds of screen time in the entire movie and it was very easy to miss, if you don't pay attention, you might think it was just Sulu with his brother or something like that, and not a gay couple together.
-
ecanarensis — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 04:04 PM)
Really, the only thing that bothered me about the (incredibly brief) scene was that they felt it necessary to end it by zooming in on the guys' arms around each other's waists. Might as well have had subtitles screaming "LOOK, WE MADE SULU GAY, ISN'T THAT COOL OF US?!?!?!?"
As for the furor about it, I'm not at all surprised. Tired & weary that so many seem to feel it necessary to fure, but not surprised. sigh -
-
kyliesca — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 09:27 PM)
According to Simon Pegg, they wanted to include a gay character into this alternate Star Trek universe because ST is suppose to be inclusive, and they didn't want to just create a new character and make him gay because then that character would just be seen as the mere token gay character. So they wanted to turn a character whom we're all already familiar with gay, and they decided it would be Sulu, maybe it's because George Takei is gay, I don't know, but that's the decision they went with.