Star Trek: Beyond (July 22, 2016)

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by music and movies, Dec 14, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shokhead

    shokhead Head shok and you still don't what it is. HA!

    Location:
    SoCal, Long Beach
    Different time.
     
  2. Yep and that episode written by science fiction writer David Gerrold (Gerrold is gay so it was a topic near and dear to his heart) was rewritten to completely remove the gay themes. This was the last straw and he left ST:TNG over this AND the lack of credit on developing the series and developing the series bible essentially "creating" the show with Roddenberry.
     
    kevywevy likes this.
  3. Matthew

    Matthew Senior Member

    They should have nixed the idea as soon as they DIDN'T have Takei's blessing.

    Pegg talks about tokenism and fails to see this is exactly what retconning Sulu is.

    I have no problem with Trek exploring diversity but this was just a dumb way to go about it, because without Takei's blessing it just became this little controversy rather than something celebratory.
     
    Rocker and Dudley Morris like this.
  4. tommy-thewho

    tommy-thewho Senior Member

    Location:
    detroit, mi
    Saw it last night.

    Thought it was better than 2nd one and not as good as first one.

    Really pumped up action on this one.
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  5. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    I thought the weirdest thing about the scene with Sulu and his partner was that it was clearly choreographed so that it wasn't "offensive" to anyone who would be offended by such a relationship. Just a weirdly extended shot of the two guys wrapping their arms around each other's mid-torso.

    I felt like they either should have left it out (they weren't showing tearful reunions with a ton of other main crew members) or showed it realistically, in which case they probably should have shown kissing, etc.

    I think Takei's point is probably true; he played the character "straight", and certainly if a straight actor can play a gay part, then a gay actor can play a straight part. On the other hand, it's not as if everything else in the "reboot" universe was kept in tact from the original. Spock wasn't dating Uhura in the original series either. I think ultimately Takei perhaps thinks the whole thing is just a little too on the nose from an artistic point of view. It is a bit too pandering. I agree they should have just made *another* character gay in order to realistically depict it. I can also see why some might gripe; I mean, why not make Kirk gay? Does anyone think they'd go in *that* direction?
     
    Rocker likes this.
  6. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    I caught the film this weekend, and it was very much like *most* Trek films in that it plays like a really long, really high budget episode of a TV series. Which is fine, because that's what it is.

    I think it's true that there aren't a ton of totally wacky, unique new ways to do things within the "Trek" template. Which is fine, because I love Trek the way it is.

    I disagree with other comments that the new Trek isn't "serialized" enough. I'm totally sick of every movie franchise needing to be a "universe" and have everything serialized. A standalone film is great. The best Trek episodes were often stand-alone stories. "Measure of a Man" is one of the best episodes of any Trek series ever, and that one is essentially a one-shot courtroom drama episode about Data.
     
  7. schugh

    schugh Forum Resident

    Oh so it was that scene in the space station where Sulu wraps his hand around this other guy and picks up this kid.
    After the movie ended I was wondering where was that scene about acknowledging that Sulu is gay?
    I remember this scene and the only thing that came to my mind at the time was "oh just meeting family".
    I'm not a hugger myself but I didn't see anything out of the ordinary in that scene because I know many people meet like this.
    It does make me wonder if no one had mentioned what this scene was about if people would have picked up on it.
    It clearly went over my head. :)
     
    neo123 likes this.
  8. neo123

    neo123 Senior Member

    Location:
    Northern Kentucky
    I thought exactly the same way. Just assumed it was a family greeting.
     
  9. DreadPikathulhu

    DreadPikathulhu Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    Well, as part of the demographic that was "pandered" to, both my partner and myself enjoyed the scenes with Sulu and family. Here was an established character who we've known for almost 50 years displaying the complexities of a normal, human being and doing so in a casual and offhand manner that you could blink and miss - just like in real life.

    Creating new character simply so they can say "I'm gay!" would have been pandering, IMHO.
     
  10. Time Is On My Side

    Time Is On My Side Forum Resident

    Location:
    Madison, WI
    They were pushing it very hard on YouTube ads. I went and saw it on Sunday and really enjoyed it.
     
    Simon A likes this.
  11. Dr. Pepper

    Dr. Pepper What, me worry?

    The folks I went with were M52, F51, M40, F17 and M16. Every person enjoyed the film with the females saying it might be their favorite of all Trek films. My guess is this is in part due to the strong female characters and humor. Jaylah was a big hit for everyone. Urban's Doctor was his best performance in the series so far.
     
    Simon A likes this.
  12. pdenny

    pdenny 22-Year SHTV Participation Trophy Recipient

    Location:
    Hawthorne CA
    Really...I mean, they couldn't find another Mexican actor to portray Khan? :nyah:
     
  13. Squealy

    Squealy Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Vancouver
    My first thought was, you went with a bunch of robots?
     
    LivingForever, BNell and Dr. Pepper like this.
  14. Squealy

    Squealy Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Vancouver
    Well no, because nobody else had a loved one on that space station. The point was to make the threat of the station's destruction more personal to one of the Enterprise crew.

    Regardless of George Takei's personal life Sulu would be an appropriate choice for a sexuality change and a child because, when did they ever tell us anything about Sulu?
     
  15. jriems

    jriems Audio Ojiisan

    Not that there's anything wrong with that...
     
    Simon A likes this.
  16. Dr. Pepper

    Dr. Pepper What, me worry?

    Yes, but you are very bright, so I bet you figured it out eventually!
     
  17. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    Creating a "more personal" threat is a whole separate issue I have with a lot of films in general; it never doesn't seem kind of forced and kind of implies that the protagonist in question would care less if it were non-family members. Which is no doubt true if we're being realistic.

    As for Takei, my sense of his issues (which could be an incorrect interpretation) were that:

    1. He didn't have an issue with revealing a gay character, but had the issue with this specific character being the one in question

    2. He felt it was gimmicky to pick the character whose original real-life counterpart is well-known and rightly celebrated as being openly gay as the fictional character who is revealed to be the same (and maybe this is just my interpretation; I can't say I have any direct words from Takei specifically saying this)

    3. Most pointedly and the point where Takei has the most gravitas is that he knows how he played the character and surely knows more about the shape and direction of his character than most anybody else via conversations with Roddenberry, and I believe he has specifically said that feels the character is straight and they played it straight. Consequently, I believe he said that they should have a gay character or characters in the film, but that it should be someone else. This particular issue probably has more to do with the "changing the original characters" debate than it has anything to do specifically with sexual orientation of characters. One point that does undercut Takei's argument is that they certainly changed some of the nature of Spock in the reboot, so perhaps at that point any change isn't any more problematic than any other. I think that's where it comes back around to Point #2 above; certainly I don't think it's a coincidence that the filmmakers picked Sulu to be revealed as a gay character. Some think that particular choice, and not the general choice to reveal gay characters, is gimmicky. Obviously, the filmmakers think it's a great tribute, and I have to assume they had good intentions that I ultimately can't find huge fault with.
     
  18. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    I think, objectively, revealing Sulu as a gay character was both pandering and, in the subtle way they did it, a "safe" way of doing it by allowing people who would be offended to not interpret it that way. Some feel it's a smart, brave way to do it. Others are offended, while yet others think it's not a strong enough move in the direction of more strongly depicting gay characters.

    I don't know if Takei advocated for creating a new character and making that character gay, or if he suggesting simply revealing an existing character *other* than Sulu as gay (nor do I know if he even made a distinction in his comments), but I certainly agree that creating some new prominent bridge crew member "Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie" style would have been too ham-fisted, as would creating a "red shirt" character. At that point, it does kind of leave us with perhaps revealing Chekov as being a gay character, or Bones, etc. I honestly can't remember how much those characters' romantic relationships or orientation were portrayed in the previous two films, nor can I say whether previously depicted heterosexual relationships of those characters (or Kirk for that matter) would preclude critics and fans accepting a bisexual or homosexual depiction of the same characters in a third film.
     
  19. Encuentro

    Encuentro Forum Resident

    I'm not sure what you mean.
     
  20. Encuentro

    Encuentro Forum Resident

    Exactly. In the Trek universe, it is a non-issue and should be treated as such.
     
  21. Sure. It could have been his cousin...his brother...there's nothing in your face about it which is what I liked about the scene. It was very casual and matter of fact(well, OK, if it was his brother he wouldn't have put his arm around his waist).
     
  22. pdenny

    pdenny 22-Year SHTV Participation Trophy Recipient

    Location:
    Hawthorne CA
    :righton:
    [​IMG]
     
    Encuentro likes this.
  23. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    Yes agreed, but you would never get that kind of an ethically meaty and focused story in a theatrical film, which is why TV is better suited for Trek. Hopefully, the new series will lean more in this direction (than not).
     
    Meng and Encuentro like this.
  24. rufus t firefly

    rufus t firefly Forum Resident

    Location:
    Arizona
    I saw it with my son (age 13). He did not like it as much as the first two films in this series. I agree. I thought it was weakly written. Predictable, and actually a little boring. It pains me to be this critical.
     
  25. BeatleJWOL

    BeatleJWOL Senior Member

    Well, early on it was rumored that Into Darkness was going to have Benicio del Toro in a lead role...and then the Khan rumors started...or something like that.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine