>George Takei: making Sulu gay in new Star Trek is 'really unfortunate'
>Actor who played the character in TV series calls retrofitted sexuality – intended as a tribute to his LGBT activism – ‘a twisting of Gene Roddenberry’s creation’
>https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/star-trek-beyond-george-takei-sulu-really-unfortunate
Well, now he's just being contrarian.
not realy
i think its pretty weird too, and im the biggest faggot here
why couldnt they just introduce a new gay character without retconning shit?
>>71797353
>why couldnt they just introduce a new gay character without retconning shit?
Simon Pegg already said that if he did that, then people would think of the new character as merely "the gay character" because he's incapable of writing characters with more than one personality trait.
>>71797353
>introduce a new gay character
>WOW ANOTHER FAGGOT? THEY'RE PUSHING GAYS DOWN OUR THROATS AGAIN
>>71797353
In peg's own fucking words "Then all that character would be known for was being gay"
>>71797390
Why not make Scotty gay then, eh Peg?
>>71797379
Which is why it's totally better that people think of Sulu as the character that's gay because the original actor was.
Or something.
>>71797422
Pegg's words:
>We could have introduced a new gay character but he or she would have been primarily defined by their sexuality, seen as the ‘gay character,’ rather than simply for who they are and isn’t that tokenism?
>Justin Lin, Doug Jung, and I loved the idea of it being someone we already knew because the audience have a pre-existing opinion of that character as a human being, unaffected by any prejudice. Their sexual orientation is just one of many personal aspects, not the defining characteristic. Also, the audience would infer that there has been an LGBT presence in the TrekUniverse from the beginning (at least in the Kelvin timeline), that a gay hero isn’t something new or strange. It’s also important to note that at no point do we suggest that our Sulu was ever closeted, why would he need to be? It’s just hasn’t come up before.
Did Sulu have any defining characteristics at all? In the original series and in the remake? I don't remember. He just seemed like a regular crew member.
>>71797390
if he was poorly written, sure
>>71797379
>>71797388
>>71797390
im pretty sure sulu is canonically str8 though. wasnt he distracted by some scantily clad women at some point?
>>71797390
That's why you make an interesting new character who happens to be gay instead of making him the token faggot.
>>71797487
He never had a romantic relationship in the series that talked about everything from rape to gender to murder but not once GAY.
with like 23 DAYS worth of content...
>>71797527
>>71797486
Well guess which one was easier.
>>71797416
lel, good point, take one for the team ya poof.
>>71797527
I LOVE HOW EVERYONE WOULD RATHER 30 MINUTES OF A GAY GUY DOING A OLLIE KICKFLIP THEN 2 MINUTES OF SULU GOING
>Yeah this is tony and my daughter, suzi
I find it incredible how worked up people can get about which gender a person likes to fuck. As long as the character is well written and interesting, why the hell should I care which way he or she swings? I just want good dialogs and stories, which are two things that Star Trek Beyond definitely won't have.
>>71797486
No matter how well written the character could be they would be seen as only being introduced as the token gay, even if there's only one scene of them with their partner and that's all there is with regards to them being gay.
Even having Sulu be gay stinks of tokenism.
>>71797639
Thing is, I don't really care what gender they like as long as they're an interesting character outside of that.
Unfortunately, when a lot of things have a gay character in them, "Is gay" usually ends up being literally their entire character.
>>71797485
George Takei fought Rodenberry when Gene wanted him to use a katana in the original series. He said a rapier would make more sense because that's what would be taught in America where Sulu grew up, and won.
New Sulu uses what looks like a katana after he said he was a fencer. Because you know, the original actor was Japanese and shit, it's an homage.
Same thing here. But if you go to a gay icon and ask for his blessing to make a character who was presented as straight as a way to "honour" them and their contribution to the Star Trek franchise then turn around and say "Yeah well, gonna do it any way, too bad"... welp.
If they were going to ask Takei what he thought they should have listened. By doing this they basically have reduced his role to "the gay guy" since that'll be more memorable than him as a navigator or Admiral.
I'm totally fine with NuSulu being gay. Who the fuck cares?
I was having this argument with a mate of mine, he reckons that the actor shares some ownership of their role if it's a hugely iconic role, and that if Takei doesn't think Sulu is gay, then he's not gay.
I countered by saying does that mean Luke might be gay, since Hamill's said as much.
He says yes. Which I think is retarded as we clearly see Luke pining after Leia. Sulu pines over no woman (except for the Sulu of Mirror, Mirror, which was in another dimension).
I guess it depends on what you care more about - what you see on screen or what the actor portraying the character says.
>tl;dr: Friend says Luke is cool to be gay but Sulu isn't, and I say Sulu's cool to be gay but Luke isn't.
>>71797729
Takei can be a bit of a drama queen sometimes, but I've got a lot of respect for him as a fellow BurgerJap. I really wish more asian actors would call out this kind of shit, I feel like we're the only minority group that shitty writers can turn into walking stereotypes and get away with it. Shame about the whole being a faggot thing.
>>71797162
How is it contrarian? He is gay in real life, his character is not.
>>71797558
this made me laugh out loud and i almost tripped on the stairs
just leting you know
Cho isn't even a jap.
You'd think Takei would've been sore at that first.
>>71797162
>Well, now he's just being contrarian
It's called having integrity
isnt the black bitch already gay? im sure i saw her fucking a women(ish) thing in the first reboot.
Really if i had to pick one to be gay it would of been her, the dead russian guy and then scotty.
but if couldnt be the black bitch because then she literally would cover 3 minority roles and then she would just be USS Token and as for the russian, tumblr would cry again as they would of killed off another gay character, because as well all know AIDS makes you immortal.
as for scotty, he'd marry some trap/futa/cute thai boy thing.
>>71797941
Women can't be gay you ignorant faggot. Only bisexual.
>>71797592
What the fuck are you talking about?
Why couldn't a new character just go
>yeah this is tony and my daughter, suzi
>>71797487
>>71797546
Mr Sulu has a wife and daughter in the Canon
>>71797639
Nobody cares about gay characters.
When they pander to the audience that wants everyone changed to; lgbt, black, or female, people lose interest because we're sick of hollywood virtue signalling and social justice politics.
We just wanted to watch a shitty star trek movie. Now we gave to watch a shitty gay star trek movie
>>71797921
Takei actually told Cho to take the role, that his ancestry (Korean, IIRC?) didn't matter. What mattered was getting a good Asian actor into a major part to show Hollywood that it could work, that they shouldn't just be reduced to appearing for five seconds to do kung-fu and then vanish into the background while the white people did all the talking and important stuff.
Which goes back to the main problem here; Takei is an activist in ways that are reasonable. Asian representation is low? Put a good Asian actor up for people to see, don't just meet quotas for diversity. A beloved character is straight? Don't turn them gay because muh LGBT, if you want a gay character then make one, but remember that their defining trait shouldn't be I'M GAAAAY, that should just be part of their character.
I'll be honest; if they hadn't asked George first and had just made Sulu gay, I would've said "homage to the original actor, OK" and moved on. And I think that's mostly what they're trying to do. But if the person you want to honour is saying "What the literal fuck, are you guys actually retarded?" I think you need to listen to that. Especially since the reasons he goes on to give make so much sense.
>>71797162
I think the whole "true to his vision" shit is an excuse, he is probably just trying to fight the stereotype that gay actors can't play straight roles.
>>71797162
I can kind of understand how he feels about it. Like, Hikaru Sulu is what Takei is known for. He's built this miniature social media empire, sure, but that just wouldn't have happened without Sulu. He's lived through a literal revolution in terms of how society looks at his sexuality.
And now there's this frankly quite clumsy 'tribute' whereby they retcon his character to reflect that one aspect of Takei's own personality. It's a little mystifying to see Pegg wittering on about not creating a new character simply because that's all that character would ever be seen as, since this retconning rather suggests that Pegg sees, or assumes the fandom sees, Takei as little more than 'that gay guy'.
The hat-tip, the 'tribute', etc, would have been better achieved by having a newly-created gay character hit on Sulu (or maybe teasingly suggest that Sulu is gay). That's the sort of in-joke tribute that can work well.
Technically there are unfortunate implications to the decision also in that we're forced to assume either that Sulu was simply closeted in the Prime timeline and all those scenes where he hits on women are just beard-growth (or that he's bi or whatever) or else we have to speculate that Nero's actions in ST09 like, turned him gay. But that's all getting very very abstract and is something I think only people with rather too much time on their hands will be focusing on.
>>71797687
This
Adding additional factors to a character for no reason other than minority representation is tokenism regardless of how well written that character is. And it sticks out
If you want to make a gay character, use it to make a point. Maybe he faced discrimination at the academy, or maybe he got in on some minority quota and has to deal with people second-guessing his competence because of it.
>>71797390
Maybe Peg should learn how to write characters then
>>71797379
Did he explain why there needs to be a gay character in a fucking sci-fi adventure movie at all?
>>71798287
>Maybe he faced discrimination at the academy, or maybe he got in on some minority quota and has to deal with people second-guessing his competence because of it.
I dunno, Trek's generally been about some sense that all that stuff's been worked out already. When it's shown humans feeling prejudiced in those ways, it's always been abstracted and transposed onto them feeling prejudiced towards aliens and so on. I don't think there'd be any point to having a gay character in Star Trek who experiences homophobia. It would've been inappropriate for Uhura to experience racism during TOS, for exampleand please don't bring up the episode with Lincoln, that's different.
>>71797687
>>71798287
"If a guy builds a thousand bridges and sucks one cock, they don't call him a bridge builder. They call him a cock sucker."
>>71798332
literally the entire point of star trek is to explore human character and emotions in absurd hypothetical situations
it was never about aliens, action or anything else
>>71798332
Does there have to be a need?
>>71798332
There doesn't need to be. Nor does there need to be a need to be. 'Need' is not the right way to think about this.
On July 7, 2016, it was announced that the film Star Trek Beyond would portray Hikaru Sulu as being in a same-sex relationship raising a daughter. This would make him the first main openly gay character in the Star Trek film franchise.
>>71798332
Star Trek had the first Interracial Kiss on TV. It's a show about social issue. It's like the first Social Justice Warrior show... i guess?
![article-0-08D36CC0000005DC-157_468x334[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HaKHUzX.jpg "article-0-08D36CC0000005DC-157_468x334[1].jpg")
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/star-trek-beyond-sulu-gay-progressive-sexuality
>Mr Takei even stated that he asked Roddenberry to create a gay character on Star Trek, but made it clear that Sulu was intended to be straight. But can we call Sulu or any Star Trek character truly straight or gay? Should we? We’re applying our 21st-century ideas of sexuality to a story that Roddenberry meant to be about the destruction of the walls that separate us from each other.
>roddenberry clearly had in mind our contemporary fringe tumblrtard ideas of sexual fluidity when he wrote Star Trek 50 years ago
>>71798502
>Star Trek had the first Interracial Kiss on TV.
This is actually a myth. Sammy Davis Jr and Nancy Sinatra kissed live on TV several months before the episode aired.
And, for extra nerd-credit, if you go by production order rather than airing order, Kirk/Uhura wasn't even the first interracial kiss on Star Trek, never mind on TV. In Elaan of Troyius, Kirk and a character played by an Asian woman kiss.
>>71798400
>>71798502
I guess these are fair points. I've completely forgotten these movies are supposed to be Star Trek
>>71798411
>>71798434
It's written in there for a reason. Movies aren't real life
If you've ever listened to Takei on Stern, you know he loves hypermacho dudes, and has always been overjoyed to hang around straight dudes that're okay with showing him their dicks, because as a gay guy, he likes that titilation
Sulu is a little bit of that for him, partly in that he was not only a badass piece of space titilation for any gay guys watching, but also a masculine lead Asian character that was allowed to be a badass WITHOUT being some sort of chingy chongy stereotype
The other part is beyond gays having Takei as a role-model, straight Asian guys have always been starved for a masculine character in basically any media since the dawn of time, and with Sulu, they had someone to either project with or enjoy/relate with on a racial level, as Sulu's Asian heritage was ambiguous to appeal to a giant demographic
Making him gay basically isolates that chunk of straight Asian guys that liked watching the Asian dude do manly and dangerous things in space, and probably creates a lot more Elliot Roger's in the process
>>71798532
>when he wrote Star Trek 50 years ago
Maybe not 50 years ago. But he was getting pretty far out by the late '70s. Bit of an acid casualty.
That said, as a fan I'm tired of this endless yammering on about Roddenberry's intentions and desires etc. The man's dead. More Star Trek has been written and made since his death than was made during his lifetime, never mind made by him directly. Nobody gives a fuck if Colonel Sanders 'would have approved' of the Zinger Tower or the Boneless Banquet or whatever the fuck. Why do people expect us to give a solitary fuck about what Roddenberry 'would have wanted'? Because I honestly just don't care what the old lech would or wouldn't have approved of.
>>71798576
>It's written in there for a reason.
'For a reason' != 'To satisfy a need'.
We might as well ask you why you feel there's a 'need' for there to be NO gay characters in a blah blah blah. It's a mis-framing of the issue to talk in terms of 'need'.
>>71798483
Wasn't Ricker bi?
The biggest reason it's shit is that it implies their are still closeted people in a perfect future where they accepted shit like this hundreds of years prior.
>>71797162
george de gay
>>71798609
>Making him gay basically isolates that chunk of straight Asian guys that liked watching the Asian dude do manly and dangerous things in space, and probably creates a lot more Elliot Roger's in the process
this
t. mixed white + filipino, just like the gentleman himself
>>71798767
>he doesn't know about homo-cleansing of 2141.
>all these people on /tv/ virtue signaling who are OK with this
So you guys are watching the new Ghostbusters then?
>>71798576
>>71798661
Why is it important at all to address the sexuality either way? Who gives a fuck
>>71798609
>Asian guys have always been starved for a masculine character in basically any media since the dawn of time
In American media.
The big reason I think many Asians in America don't freak about getting shit on in American media is that they look back to China, Korea, or Japan depending on where they are from and see huge megastars kicking ass, getting hot ladies and being eye candy.
>>71798867
Of course I will watch new ghostbusters, when it's out on torrents. Why wouldn't I?
>>71797790
>Who the fuck cares?
I've been hearing this question asked by retards in response to controversial things all day and it's starting to sound like a rhetorical question. A lot of people care. Anyone talking about cares. If you have to ask, you fucking care.
>>71798927
For the same reason we have to adress that charcters are straight (remember the "not gays" part from Plinkett's Star Trek review?). If there's ambiguity, people get scared. And Sulu is the only character in neo-Star Trek who doesn't have a confirmed case of the not gays, but wasn't officially gay yet.
If they make Sulu straight, you know there'd be tons of controversy about it regardless of Takei okaying it. The only logical outcome is to make him gay.
>tokenism
>bowing down to societal pressure
pathetic
>Paramount "had a script for Star Trek that wasn't really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y." Pegg had been asked to make the new film "more inclusive", stating that the solution was to "make a western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters so it's more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent.
kek
also a rich straight white dude trying to tell a gay poc how he should feel about being a gay poc is hilarious
I just hope Paramount is forcing Peg to be this retarded.
Ironic that the progressive wanting diversity wasnt willing to make his own character the catalyst for it
Instead he was content with degrading one of the most iconic asian male roles in American media into a shameless pandering.
Anyone else feel bad for Simon? He's basically cucked himself into a corner expecting support from george
and now he's digging the hole even deeper by saying he disagrees with Georges disagreement.........
>we made a character GAY look how progressive we are!
I'll be at home watching a tv series about a polyamorous bisexual woman and her straight/gay/bi sidekicks.
ST has become so tame and so adverse to taking any risks that it doesn't even feel like ST anymore.
Remember Tell Me About Your Sexual Organs? About Mirror Kira? About crewmen in skirts? About the Trills?
>>71799262
>unless you're swooning over ever girl and looking at asses then you're gay
wow its like the 80s
is this what the progressives have done? brought society back 30 years?
>>71799407
Fuck off Simon you sellout
>>71797162
Remember when George jerked that guy off on the Howard Stern show?
Its also a bit insulting because it pushes that Takei couldn't play a straight character becasue he isn't straight.
just like with niggers, women and poor people. wealthy left wing white people now officially know what is best for the gays. they cannot be questioned.
>>71797485
Omar was gay and no one has ever known him as the "gay character". How about you just write better characters you cuck piece of shit?I don't really care though and Star Trek is pretty gay anyway
>>71797388
>pushing gays down our throat
yes please
BREAKING NEWS
As part of a loving and heartfelt tribute to honor the late great Leonard Nimoy, a short scene in Star Trek® Beyond® will casually reveal that Spock (Zachary Quinto, inspired by Leonard Nimoy) is actually a human wearing rubber ears, just like his original actor, Leonard Nimoy.
In theaters, RealD 3D and IMAX 3D starting July 22nd.
>>71799576
((((wealthy left wing white people))))
>>71799640
>How about you just write better characters you cuck piece of shit?
He's literally admitting that he can't.
>>71799782
Perhaps he should stick to acting then.
>>71798867
>virtue signaling
This is rapidly becoming my favourite thought-terminating cliche.
>>71798927
>Who gives a fuck
Honestly m8 it sounds like you for one give multiple fucks.
>>71797485
Bullshit.
Star Trek is the only universe where you can introduce a pansexual gender fluid character and instead of being tokenism it would just be a retread.
>>71797162
Simon "It's the only reason I'm famous but geek culture is disgusting" Pegg basically said that a straight white man knows what's better for the character than its creator or the guy that played him for 40+ years. Pretty much, "Shut up, you silly queer. We know what's best for you."
Hollywood liberals are literally some of the worst people on the planet.
>Sulu is straight in Prime timeline
>Gay in JJ one
>People are born gay
>but now they aren't
What
>>71799939
To be fair, it's just a character. An alternate version of the character, even.
It'd be silly to pretend you care about the character and not the decision made here.
>>71799452
That risk-averseness goes all the way back to TNG. Tell Me About Your Sexual Organs was piss-weak. Frakes was holding out for the character to be played by a dude to really hammer home the point. Suits wouldn't play ball.
Mirror Kira was just le sexy lesbian/perverted bisexual crap. Crewmen in skirts were just a joke. The truth is that Star Trek spends a lot more time talking about how progressive and envelope-pushing it is than actually progressing and pushing envelopes. It's resting on some 50-yo laurels that aren't even all that impressive to begin with.
>>71799939
He's reasoning was sound though. How would shoehorning in another character whose defining trait would be that of being gay accomplish anything?
>>71800020
Why the fuck would being gay have to be the defining trait?
>>71800049
>implying you'd care about anything else
Blah blah jews pushing agendas, we get it.
>>71800049
I mean, you're effectively asking "Why would being gay be the defining trait of a character created because of the explicit decision to create a gay character?"
I'm not going to say it's impossible but you can see how it might be difficult.
>>71799975
That isn't risk averse.
That is called pushing the boundaries and the fact that execs continually pushed back shows that they were on the edge of what was possible at the time.
Just because they can make aterribleshow today where a tranny fucks a black woman with a rainbow colored dildo doesn't mean what they did wasn't testing the boundaries at the time.
>>71800071
What?
>>71800096
Yeah you'd have to not be a completely worthless writer.
>>71797978
This, it's fucking retarted to make him gay in the alternate timeline. Somehow the destruction of Vulcan does that.
>>71800020
No. Make one of the new character gay and make that fact non-important to his/her character arc. Reveal it at the end or late in the movie.
>>71800193
>he picks the tackiest way of introducing and revealing a gay character
Thank god you faggots don't work in the industry.
>make a gay actor's character gay in reboot
>gay actor gets pissed off about it
is this poetry?
You know what really annoys me about all this.
More so then Pegg and co ignoring what Takei had to say on the matter and more then the tokenism.
Its the fact that they're trying to play it as it's some sort of normal natural everyday part of the character, that it's not suppose to be a big deal, but then they go an make it a big deal by talking about it and publicizing it.
If they really wanted to make it just an ordinary part of the character and not the character's defining trait, they would have kept their mouths closed before the film came out. Then when it came out and people went "Oh my god, Sulu's GAY!" they should have replied with a simple "Umm, yeah." as if someone had just said "Oh my god, Sulu has BLACK HAIR!"
>>71797485
While I understand Pegg's reasoning, lets face it the only character who has less going for him/less that makes him stand out is Chekov.
Sulu's entire character can now be described as "The gay asian guy who flys the ship and has a sword"
>>71798116
>Takei actually told Cho to take the role, that his ancestry (Korean, IIRC?) didn't matter.
While Sulu is suppose to be a Jap American, who grew up in San Fran, he was suppose to also be non-specifically Asian. Sulu is named after the Sulu Sea in the Philippians, in order to make him less country specific.
>Hey, Peg, how about making Sulu bi? That way it doesn't contradict anything and makes a good, positive, progressive statement about an overlooked part of the LGBTQ community
>Peg: Bi? What's that?
>>71800127
>That isn't risk averse.
M8 it literally is. Like, they literally refused to cast a dude in the asexual role because they were literally averse to the literal risk of a backlash.
>>71800221
But... that's what they did with Sulu...
>>71800337
The whole sexuality thing was already pushing the envelope at the time. Execs pushing back from going the extra mile doesn't make it risk averse, it means they literally were not allowed to do it.
>>71800337
You didn't even read his post, did you?
>That is called pushing the boundaries and the fact that execs continually pushed back shows that they were on the edge
>>71800544
I did read his post. The claim is that depicting a race of asexuals was 'pushing the boundaries' in like 1989 or whenever it was. It's not that I don't understand the claim, you see - I just think it's wrong. Got that?
>>71800193
If it's not important to the character, they shouldn't make a big reveal of it.
At most, it should be a throwaway line, like mentioning having/finding a boyfriend as casually as they would about a girlfriend, with nobody else finding that especially odd or noteworthy to show they take it as completely natural.
>>71800337
The producers were risk averse, the writers were pushing the boundaries. Two different groups of people. But when I think of Star Trek, I think of its writers more than I think of its producers.
>>71800594
So... what were some other examples of asexuality back in the media of the 1990s?
>>71800594
Literally "I don't want to admit being wrong on the internet: the post."
>>71800653
There don't need to have been other examples of asexuality, because asexuality wasn't the issue. It was, manifestly, an allegory of gay oppression. You will remember, after all, that it's the general species that is asexual, and the specific character is shunned and isolated specifically for deviating from that purported norm of asexuality. The writers quite likely didn't consider asexuality an actual thing, and it certainly wasn't the issue they were thinking about.
Frakes maintained at the time that, because it was an allegory for gay oppression, and was intended to make a statement in favour of gay rights/acceptance etc, the message was undermined by having the character portrayed by a female actor.
Bottom line: The Outcast is literally a man kissing a woman wearing some makeup and some other people in makeup don't like it because reasons. There's no 'there' there. There's literally nothing anybody could even reasonably regard as 'daring' or 'controversial'.
>>71800792
See above. I'll wait for your sincere apology, which will no doubt be shortly forthcoming.
I ask "pro-faggots being in everything because lol who cares" people here if they would also be okay of introducing polygamous characters, virgin robot tards, religious fanatics as the good guys, single moms just because they are under represented and not because they add anything to the story?
>>71799543
The TNG reboot will reveal that Picard is actually British, because a British person cannot portray a French person and it's wrong to imply that they can.
And the movie will end with this exchange:
>Mr. Data, you're becoming more human every day.
>Actually, sir, I am human. I am just a normal person wearing makeup and exhibiting unusual mannerisms while pretending to be an android.
>Make it so, Mr. Data. Engage.
>>71797844
Why are BurgerJaps so rare on the east coast?
>>71800906
Can't sleep tonight unless you 'win' in this thread?
Pathetic. But keep moving that goalpost, I'm enjoying the chase.
>>71800972
Pro-faggots being in everything because lol who cares guy here, can confirm I give not a single fuck about any of those.
>>71800906
The message was undermined but the message was still there.
What are some other examples of messages about homosexuality that were being pushed on mainstream television back in 1992?
>>71797790
>"Who the fuck cares?"
>"I was having this argument with a mate of mine"
Apparently YOU care.
>>71801036
>i actually didn't realise the asexual character wasn't actually asexual and that that was the entire plot of the episode
>i don't actually watch star trek, i just role-play on the internet as someone who does
>really i just enjoy pretending to be angry
>>71801061
The message would still be there if the character just wore a little badge saying 'gays are fine mmkay' in tiny illegible writing. It wouldn't be worth a fiddler's fart, but it would be there. It would also push no boundaries at all.
>What are some other examples of messages about homosexuality that were being pushed on mainstream television back in 1992?
I can't locate anything specific to 1992. Will the 1980s do?
>With the emergence of the AIDS epidemic and its implicit relation to gay men, media outlets varied on their coverage, portrayal and acceptance of the LGBT community.[2] The Moral Majority, the Coalition for Better Television, and the American Family Association began to organize boycotts against sponsors of television programs that showed homosexuals in what they viewed as a positive light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_portrayal_of_LGBT_people#1980s_and_the_emergence_of_the_AIDS_epidemic
It was failing to push at a boundary that wasn't even new ground. It was rendering strictly allegorical a message that had been explicitly stated by other shows.
More than half of the z generation aren't straight. Being lgbt is the norm and only including one gay character is actually a conservative thing to do.
If humans don't use money in the 24th century how do they handle real estate disputes on earth?
Official List of Reasons Why This is [Problematic].
>closeting
Sulu has flirted with women before, so he was straight in one timeline but gay in another (does Simon Pegg claim to know what makes a person gay?) or he was just closeted (which doesn't fit with the ideals of a progressive future).
>current bisexual erasure
Pegg could solve his problems by indicating that Sulu is bisexual in both timelines, but he seems to forget that bisexuality exists.
>prior bisexual erasure
Rick Berman ensured that Star Trek had zero gay characters, but Michael Piller and Ira Steven Behr made room in Star Trek for bisexual characters. When Pegg claims that Star Trek "hasn’t featured an LGBT character until now" then he's ignoring that history of bisexuality.
>false tribute
George Takei had previously indicated to the writing staff that he didn't want this change to be made. It's not a good tribute when the person on the receiving end doesn't want it. Claims from the production team that this is a tribute ring hollow and disingenuous.
>gay acting
Takei played Sulu straight, so this signals us that either Takei specifically is a bad actor or that gay actors in general cannot portray straight characters.
>gay actors
Pegg wants to give Sulu a character trait to reflect Takei, but Takei's homosexuality appears to be the entirety of what Pegg knows about Takei.
>Sulu's character
Pegg won't create a new gay character because he doesn't want them "defined by their sexuality", but Sulu hasn't been given any character traits (other than wielding a katana, a move offensive and stereotyping to Takei) so this is exactly what Pegg has done to Sulu.
>Into Darkness
Pegg's refusal to create new characters and ideas, and his steadfast insistence on rehashing the old are emblematic of the lack of creativity or courage associated with these flicks.
>DIY
Pegg could have also avoided so much controversy if he had just made his own character gay instead of faking a tribute as a marketing stunt.
>>71801273
You didn't locate anything in your quoted text either.
It says that some people were pushing back, but it doesn't say which television shows had messages that they were pushing back against.
Please, give us examples of those television shows. As many as you can.
>>71801634
>It says that some people were pushing back, but it doesn't say which television shows had messages that they were pushing back against.
The question has been asked and answered, bro. You would be shocked how little it means to me if you can't concede the point.
>>71801688
I asked for examples. You aren't giving any. You did watch television in the eighties, right?
>>71800129
>Yeah you'd have to not be a completely worthless writer.
even for a halfway decent writer this is not an easy task, considering the movie the studio wanted was just another flashy sci-fi action romp.
Asian dudes are pretty faggy looking so what's the big deal? You can't have gay Asians anymore?
Unfortunately Takei is going to get pressured so much and have so many people constantly bringing this up that he is eventually going to say "Fuck it! I like the change now!" just to give himself some peace. Then all the SJWs will start telling everyone to shut up because he likes it now.
>>71801737
I provided you with unambiguous proof that such examples exist. If you are genuinely curious, you can carry out further research yourself. If, as I rather suspect, you simply want to avoid admitting that you've lost the argument, you are of course free to continue haranguing me. But as I say, you clearly wildly overestimate how important it is to me that you type something to the effect of "I see you are right". You just don't matter that much, sorry.
>>71800096
>"Why would being gay be the defining trait of a character created because of the explicit decision to create a gay character?"
>"How can we write this and not look obvious or forced?"
>"How can we write better?"
>>71797162
>rainbow colored PR posters
>le main character is gay gimmick
real fuckin subtle shlomo
>>71798532
Again, Pegg's position sounds rather reasonable:
>“I don’t believe Gene Roddenberry’s decision to make the prime timeline’s Enterprise crew straight was an artistic one, more a necessity of the time.Trek rightly gets a lot of love for featuring the first interracial kiss on US television, but Plato’s Stepchildren was the lowest rated episode ever."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/simon-pegg-defends-gay-sulu-after-george-takei-criticism
>>71801919
If you make the claim then it is your job to provide examples which support your claim, not ask others to do your work for you.
>you clearly wildly overestimate how important it is to me
You aren't providing examples yet you are still replying. Clearly this is important to you and you will now reply to me again.
>>71801984
see:
>>71801760
It's a well known fact that "Beyond" was supposed to be more cerebral but Paramount vetoed that first draft.
>>71802091
It's amusing, but not important. Are you suggesting that the article is inaccurate?
>>71797379
Should have got Josh Sawyer or Chris Avellone to write this film.
>>71802166
Oh look, you're still replying without examples. I guess this is important to you.
I don't know if the article is accurate. Maybe the article is accurate but you're interpreting it incorrectly. I'm still waiting to see examples. Why aren't you providing them?
>they changed a small detail in a reboot
>people go insane and say it betrayed the original vision
I don't give a shit about Star Trek or whatever but any retard who thinks a movie's quality stems from how faithful it is to the shit it's ripping off should voluntarily remove themselves from the gene pool
>>71802304
How do you feel about all other the complaints which aren't about destroying the original vision, e.g. >>71801529?
>>71798332
More importantly, why do we need to know they are gay unless it becomes important to the plot/character development?
>>71802368
*the other
>>71802264
>I guess this is important to you.
It's rapidly becoming the funniest thing in my immediate environment. But again, what I've said is that it's not important to me that you acknowledge you've lost the argument. And it's not, in particular.
But very well. Let's establish a victory condition. Complete this sentence:
>I will acknowledge that The Outcast did not push the boundaries of gay acceptance if you can show me ___________
>>71798400
>Implying most of Trek isn't mostly Pulp Science Fiction.
>>71802368
Literally none of the first 6 complaints hold any water.
We're talking about a universe, which is an altered timeline of another universe, where aliens, spaceships, and lightspeed exists. Who gives a fuck if the guy was gay in a show from 50 years ago, but is gay in a movie made now? Fuck, we're not even using the same actors. Are you guys triggered because the actor in the first Star Trek was Takei, and now he's not. Are you saying I'll look, act, and be completely different in another timeline?
The other complaints are just Pegg being a writing hack whose previous masterpieces were entirely held up by Edgar Wright's fantastic directorial style.
>>71797388
Their reason for putting in a gay character is to have a gay character - because they thought the cast was lacking in LGBT characters. That's the definition of pushing gay characters.
>>71797790
>Who cares
Most people who are fans of something that is getting a film adaptation would like the film to be as close to the source material as possible. The ST films are different in several areas canon-wise, but I really enjoyed how well they did with the cast. I don't like that they decided to alter something about it to push a political agenda. The cool thing about the cast being so 1:1 with the original series is that you can pretty much put them in any new situation and it's like getting big-budget additions to the original series. Adding another character who just so happens to be gay wouldn't step on that, but fundamentally changing one of the core members of the original cast does. They could easily just meet another person, but retconning things to be "so progressive" is complete bullshit.
My favorite thing about this is that they did it to appease George Takei, the guy who played Sulu, a guy who worked closely with the creator of ST, a known gay, and a major LGBT advocate. When Takei goes on to say "hey making Sulu gay just because you want a gay character really doesn't fit cmon now", a straight guy has the audacity to tell him that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and to shut up. It's like when Snoop Dog or whatever complained about Hollywood making too many movies about slavery. Imagine if white directors started going "uhh I respect your opinion and whatever but no you need this k thanks". Fuck Simon Pegg.
>>71802441
I will acknowledge that The Outcast did not push the boundaries of gay acceptance if you can show me through concrete examples that messages of gay acceptance were common on mainstream television shows at the time.
>>71802403
Because gay people are just people, you mongoloid. Therefore they'd just be gay without it necessitating the entire movie revolving around their sexuality.
>>71802558
>like the film to be as close to the source material as possible
Again, if your metric for whether a film works or not is 'how close it was to that thing I already liked', you're a retard.
>>71802522
> Fuck, we're not even using the same actors. Are you guys triggered because the actor in the first Star Trek was Takei, and now he's not. Are you saying I'll look, act, and be completely different in another timeline?
Dude what
This is a film adaptation
What
What are you even doing right now
>Who gives a fuck if the guy was gay in a show from 50 years ago, but is gay in a movie made now?
George Takei lmao
>>71802522
If a person is born gay then how could he be gay in one timeline and straight in another? Absolutely nothing about his genetics changed, just events in his life. The presence of aliens, spaceships, and lightspeed will not counter this.
>>71802617
>Again
That was my first post in this thread. Hi!
>If your metric for whether a film works or not is 'how close it was to that thing I already liked', you're a retard.
My metric for whether a film adaptation is a good adaptation is how well it represents the source material. Learn2read
>>71802578
How are we going to learn about Sulu being gay without some sort of scene revolving around him being gay?
I can already see the "give me the Oscar, faggots" scene now.
What if the new star trek is about the wild west instead of space?
Would you watch it since it doesn't matter what changes they make it is still Star Trek?
>>71802522
If the (You) in the other timeline is the same sperm and egg, same gestation, same early childhood, and it's only the last few years of your life that are changed, how different are you going to be?
How are you straight here and gay there? Did a gay guy lick you and you caught "the gay" from him, like an infectious disease? Is there a way to de-gay your alternate self? What is Pegg trying to tell us about the nature of homosexuality?
>>71802040
>I know Gene Roddenberry's motivations for the characters better than someone who worked on the characters with him for decades
t. Presumptuous asshole
>>71802646
>Dude what
>This is a film adaptation
>What
>What are you even doing right now
Ignoring the tumblr style of your reply, thanks for proving my point. It's an adaptation. It's not a 1:1 transfer.
It doesn't fucking matter if the character was straight before and now is gay. It's a film.
>George Takei
And we're supposed to take his opinion as gold because?
Bill Murray says the new Ghostbusters is great. You wanna go see it?
>>71802677
Who knows nigga, the butterfly effect, here's the fun part: it's a movie, so who cares?
>>71802698
>This was my first post in this thread
Welcome! Please understand by "again", I meant I had said this previously. Please tell me you didn't come into a thread, not read anything anyone said, and just replied out of nowhere. That'd be bad form, friend!
>adaptation
You realize what the root word of adaptation, "adapt" means, correct?
A film adaptation is translating source material into a new context, light, or vision. A 1:1 transfer is retarded.
>>71802787
Don't bother. /tv/'s intellect does not reach that far.
Sulu gets literally 2 lines in each film and is a throwaway character.. he had 2 seconds of screentime in Into Darkness
"of course I can fly, Im a pilot"
>>71802573
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dramatic_television_series_with_LGBT_characters
>>71802787
>Please tell me you didn't come into a thread, not read anything anyone said, and just replied out of nowhere.
You mean like you did?
>>71802304
>>71802778
They're two timelines. In the second timeline, Sulu was born gay.
That's it. That's all I have to say, by virtue of them being two timelines.
This timeline is one way. This timeline is another.
That's it.
Also
>he was straight in the original series cause he flirted with girls
I can flirt with guys right now and it wouldn't change me being straight.And if you went out and flirted with a gal, it woudn't make you straight.
>>71802677
>Absolutely nothing about his genetics changed, just events in his life.
This is technically not certain. Assuming Kirk is even a day older than Sulu, there's room for the butterfly effect.
is GRRM the only person to write gays well in the history of media?
>Alice Eve strips in Into Darkness
>Everybody complains
>Sulu gay in Beyond
>Everybody complains
You're all fags, metaphorically. I mean what do you people want? It's a reboot series based on the most pandering television show in history.
>>71802854
>ignoring every single thing I said because you can't defend your opinion
LOL
>>71797162
historically asians always get depicted as villains or gay people in hollywood.
>>71798991
indians do it too but it doesn't make them any less of emasculated pooinloos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yBnl_krN_U
>>71802677
>Time travelling Romulans made me gay
>>71802846
Thank you for proving my point. In those years, such messages were extremely rare.
If you don't believe me, scroll up from your screenshot and check out the current era for what it means for a message to be "common".
>>71803008
>Thank you for proving my point. In those years, such messages were extremely rare.
Thank you for verifying that you are psychologically incapable of admitting that you've lost the argument. I always get a little swell of pride when someone makes it explicitly clear that they are my inferior in some regard.
>>71802876
>attempting to insult me by implying that I'm gay
>thinking that homosexuality is a negative and using it as an insult
I can see now that you were never taking this seriously in the first place.
>>71802887
Is Kirk older? I know Kirk joined late, but Sulu is already a lieutenant when Kirk is still just a cadet.
>>71797162
>changing an established character instead of merely introducing a new character who can fit everything they want it to be
>it happens to be turning Sulu gay
I don't watch Star Trek stuff anymore except Star Trek: Continues. Fuck these new movies.
>>71798400
>it was never about aliens, action or anything else
You literally never seen the new movies have you?
>>71797162
>implying star trek was ever not gay
>>71803151
New show is going to be mainline right? I'll pay attention to that but fuck this movie. I was on the fence in the first place because it genuinely didn't look that great but this sealed the deal.
>>71803103
>still can't respond in kind
>JUST ignores everything else to harp on character insults that are clearly just board culture
No one will know if you admit that you're wrong. That's the wonderful thing about anonymity.
>>71802787
>And we're supposed to take his opinion as gold because?
He just happened to play the character and literally knows more than you or the movie makers.
>Bill Murray says the new Ghostbusters is great. You wanna go see it?
Obviously lying through his teeth.
>>71803069
Common: Over 50 examples listed for 2015.
Uncommon: Zero examples listed for 1992.
You have demonstrated that messages of gay acceptance were not common at the time.
>I always get a little swell of pride when someone makes it explicitly clear that they are my inferior in some regard.
You have to go back.
>>71803263
>knows more than you or the movie makers
He knows how an adaptation (read: adapt (v): make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify.) he has no involvement with should be?
Why do they feel the need to force a gay character into every film and TV series? Gays/Bis/etc make up less than 4% of the population. That's less than one in 20 people.
>hurr there are usually at least 20 characters in movie franchises
Yeah but why do they have to make it a point to outline what a character's sexuality is? There's usually not many romance plots going on anyway. And if you do put a romance plot in, it is going to be what 96% of the audience, the heteros, are going to relate to.
>>71803255
Why would I respond in kind? You're not my enemy even though we disagree. I have no reason to insult you.
>>71803247
No clue, but I read it is supposed to be more like Star Trek Continues and TOS than anything else.
>>71803325
>He knows how an adaptation (read: adapt (v): make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify.) he has no involvement with should be?
And this is why New Trek is whack. British Khans and suddenly gay Sulus.
>>71803371
>going to relate to
Are you saying you can't relate to two people in love just because of who those two people are?
Surely a gay person can relate to a straight romance in a film, no?
>>71803300
>You have to go back.
>that pathetic attempt to save face upon a well thought out insult
>>71803409
I don't mean respond in kind with insults, I mean respond at all.
You're ignoring the rest of my post for what is clearly just 4chan-influenced ribbing.
He's right. Its forced as fuck and just ruins the character. Pegg is just basically making a fan service flick
>>71803476
Oh, okay. Why do you think that Sulu is born gay? The evidence indicates that he was born AFTER the timelines diverged, so his birth should have nothing to do with his divergent sexuality.
>>71803438
I probably can't relate to two dudes kissing, but that doesn't mean it bothers me no. My point was the insertion of gay characters and gay romances in seemingly everything now just seems so completely forced and it's unnecessary to try and constantly appease such a small crowd.
>>71803557
>Why do you think that Sulu is born gay?
Becauseit's a fictional film.
Why is he gay within the context of this fictional film?Because when people say you're born gay they're being reductive--sexuality has more to do with genetics and early environment. You don't choose it, but several factors do influence it.
>>71803621
>I probably can't relate to two dudes kissing
No, maybe not, but I assume you'd be able to relate to a gay relationship.
Let's just be memers and discuss a hypothetical Poe and Finn homosexual relationship in the first movie.
You wouldn't be able to relate with someone saving their loved one, losing their loved one, and being excited to be reunited with a loved one, regardless of what gender the two parts of the relationship were?
>>71803625
Now you're not responding in kind. I'm trying to discuss in-universe details and you're shifting us to out-of-universe matters.
>>71803734
But I did discuss in-universe reasons.
Sexuality is more than just genetics. Whatever minor changes (and, surely there were many, many, many minor divergences from the main timeline that added up over the countless eons) resulted in a change in the factors making Sulu gay.
>>71797639
People don't give a fuck about gay characters. BUT people do hate and care if the character is only known for being gay and only has a personality for being gay. If it was well written and they included him being gay with a strong connection with loved ones then it wouldn't be a big deal.
That is why these pandering shit fails cause they try to make the whole gay thing not a big deal but keep hyping it up as a big deal and make the gay thing a big deal for the character instead of just adding it and focusing on making the character interesting.
>>71797162
If only the black actors have the same self respect and integrity. I mean, black Hermione, black Human Torch, Death Note L, why dont these people have the same respect for the character and themselves?
Dont they realize they are simply being used in this pragmatic industry effort to pander to political correctness, and not because their talent?
>>71803471
>pathetic attempt to save face
All you have left is greentext now, you can't even form a blacktext justification for how zero examples in 1992 is "common".
You don't have to go back, but please don't stay here.
>>71802787
>It's an adaptation. It's not a 1:1 transfer.
Of course not. I agree that an adaptation need not be a 1:1 transfer of the source material, but the better it represents the source material, the better the adaptation. Like I said earlier, one of the best parts of the prior ST films is that, while the canon might be different, the cast being so 1:1 with the original allows the writers to put them in new situations without crushing the intent of an "adaptation".
>It doesn't fucking matter if the character was straight before and now is gay. It's a film.
I'm sure it could be a great film still if they keep changing stuff about the original cast, but will it be as good of a "ST: OG edition" adaptation? No.
>And we're supposed to take George Takei's opinion as gold because?
You said "who cares". Lots of people care. Even the person who played Sulu in the first place and worked with the original creator of the show to create. His opinion on how to portray Sulu in an A D A P T A T I O N of the original source material is worth a lot.
>>71802698
>Please tell me you didn't come into a thread, not read anything anyone said, and just replied out of nowhere.
You didn't even read my entire post before replying to it. You immediately spouted "if your metric for whether a film works or not is 'how close it was to that thing I already liked', you're a retard" before even reading the part where I explained it.
>You realize what the root word of adaptation, "adapt" means, correct? A film adaptation is translating source material into a new context, light, or vision. A 1:1 transfer is retarded.
I already explained this in the first paragraph. I would however like you to pay attention to the word "represents".
>>71803840
So you'd rather L be a white guy?
>>71803471
So what your doing? You didn't prove him wrong with that insult.
>>71803625
Why is it exactly that you keep posting "it's a film" as if it completely negates all discussion about this? Is all criticism of what a writing staff chooses to do null and void because "it's a film"?
>>71803811
>(and, surely there were many, many, many minor divergences from the main timeline that added up over the countless eons)
No, there were zero divergences from the main timeline before the birth of Kirk.
Maybe you're thinking of some other Star Trek mainstay, like the Mirror Universe, but this particular divergent timeline was created by Nero's time travel.
>>71804023
I don't suffer from a constant hunger to prove random strangers on the internet wrong, anon.
I'm a depressed alcoholic and not even I am that pathetic.
>>71803471
>>71803942
>>71804023
You people are fucking children
>>71804008
L should be played by an actor who looks like L.
>>71804115
But you were proven wrong and yet you're still arguing. You're very pathetic.
>>71797162
Have they seriously not cured the gay in Star Trek's future?
>>71804125
Where do you think you are?
>>71804174
>thinking that gayness needs to be cured
In the future, they will cure your defective line of thinking.
>>71804008
is that even a question that needs to be asked, you fucking nigger?
>>71804159
Why do you keep assuming I'm the same person, in a thread with at least a hundred people posting at one point?
>create new character
>he's a good character with a good personality
>drop that he's gay in an interview or something I don't know
The way you make a new character gay and avoid tokenism is if you make a new character but don't even bring it up, not even with your dumbass little cryptic clues, because why is this a big deal when the Breen are jackhammering your ship's ass?
No, he understands you don't just make a character suddenly gay and call it progress.
>>71804221
Doesn't need to be but it should be able to be. The natural instinct for any animal is to reproduce, and homosexuals can't reproduce. There's a misfire in their brain somewhere, technically, and by that time it should be able to be corrected.
Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with being gay, but it is what it is.
>It's the future where humanity is at its most open and accepting
>fucking aliens is accepted
>some guy still hides the fact that he fucks guys for most of his life
Hmm.
>>71804245
I apologize if you're not the same person, but I do believe that you are.
Someone still ought to justify why they think that zero==common, or they should admit that they were wrong because zero=/=common. We are all adults here, aren't we?
>>71797416
Seemed like it in STId with his freaky little twink in a SanFran club
>>71802831
Now we got in beyond
>Of course I can fly, I'm gay!
>Sulu looks at the camera and winks
>>71804221
There's literally nothing wrong with finding a cure for gayness, don't be so anti-progress.
>>71797844
They can do it to Indians too.
To be fair though, you guys make more money than whites, so i don't think it's a huge deal.
>>71804245
>0 examples is a lot
>78 posters is at least 100 people
You're bad with numbers.
>>71797162
Nice
Mans got alot of integrity for a actor. I respect that
>>71804459
I honestly didn't even look, but 70 people are more than enough to prove my point.
Anyway, thanks for adding absolutely nothing of value to the thread.
>>71804437
And also nothing wrong with choosing not to take the cure because you love sucking cocks.
>>71803665
I could probably look past the fact that they're gay and I'm not and enjoy the scene, but I'm also a liberal hippie commie.
>>71798332
Star Trek is suppose to be about a diverse future where all humans are treated equally among each other. To strive for a set of diverse characters makes complete sense.
>>71804355
I'm the guy you actually lost the argument to, the guy you're replying to there is someone else.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with 'zero examples', but you'll recall the issue was about whether or not The Outcast was 'pushing the boundaries' in 1992. Given that it's an allegorical expression of pro-LGB sentiment, and given that it's predated - in some cases by more than a decade - by explicit, non-allegorical expressions, it's clearly inaccurate to describe it as pushing at any boundaries. Like I said, it was blow-in stuff, a day late and a dollar short.
Had Frakes gotten his way, that would have been something notable, definitely something you could point to and say "This was groundbreaking". The Outcast simply ain't that.
>>71804079
The fresh excuse is the past in JJverse is also changed because the time travel escapades to the past don't happen the same way in this timeline, so it diverges from prime line as early as the 1800's
Why does 2% of the population need representation in 100% of all media?
>>71804571
But why would anybody choose to be gay, it doesn't make sense.
>>71804655
>Dealing with women
Is a pretty good reason
>>71804537
He even ignored my post here: >>71803978
and here: >>71804064
Honestly I think he's just scared of me. I've seen this type of poster a lot on here and on other boards. Once they find themselves unable to compete, they get salty and run away.
Does he get space AIDS?
>>71802248
back to
>>>/v/
>>71797729
Now he's a rear admiral navigating through lots of black holes.
Sulu was gay before. No gays are allowed on the Enterprise, that's why he ran his own ship full of gays and lesbians on the 6th movie.
>>71798400
That's fine and all
But these movies aren't about that. They're about being summer blockbusters. They aren't about exploring themes, they're just there to give the general audience a quick fix of dumb action for some quick qash.
>>71804636
>A guy goes back in time and attacks a planet
>you retroactively become gay because of this
>>71800277
>lets face it the only character who has less going for him/less that makes him stand out is Chekov
What about that wacky Yakov Schmirnoff accent? Everyone loves that! You can make endless gags about it and it will never cease to be funny
>>71804618
>I'm not sure what you're talking about with 'zero examples'
Maybe you should return to the main conversation instead of hiding in a tangent?
>>71803300
What you posted indicates that pro-gay messages were not common in mainstream television at the time.
>but you'll recall
I recall that you asked for a "victory condition", you accepted the one offered, and then you failed to meet it. I guess that you shouldn't have accepted, but you did anyway. Yet another mistake that you are unable to own up to.
By disregarding your own request for a victory condition, you are now moving the goalposts, and it is sad.
>>71804675
Wouldn't you just prefer to become asexual instead? What if you could be cured of filthy sexual desire?
>>71805032
Sex is fun though. Live a little.
>>71799959
timestreams man, ain't gotta explain shit
Why not just insert one passing line where a minor character talks about his husband as he looks at a little picture or something like that?
>>71805049
You only say it's fun because you're filled with unholy thoughts. Sex should be as austere and joyless as possible.
>>71804893
I didn't 'accept' your victory condition. In fact, I repeatedly warned you that it didn't matter to me whether you were incapable of conceding the point. I posted the examples purely to demonstrate that you are, in fact, simply not capable of acknowledging that you've lost the argument. It was a pro-forma exercise undertaken in the certain belief that you would not be able to concede defeat, no matter how clear it became that your position is just not tenable. And you complied in full, almost eagerly.
No reasonable person could possibly describe The Outcast as 'pushing boundaries'. You have to be doing something new to be 'pushing boundaries' and The Outcast did nothing new. That's it, that's all she wrote. Again, whether or not you can admit that is something that's only ever going to matter to you.
>>71805217
Why?
>>71805318
Because fun is horrible
>>71805237
You asked for common goalposts. You can try to disown them now, but never forget, it was your own idea. Now your intellectual dishonesty is laid bare as you disregard those goalposts and refuse to acknowledge that you failed to meet them.
Kirk and Uhura was not television's first interracial kiss, and yet it pushed boundaries. An act does not need to be the first in order to push boundaries.
The Outcast pushed boundaries because, even though it was not the first, what it did was very uncommon (as you have demonstrated).
>>71805318
So only serious, driven people have sex and produce children, and so there isn't too many people overall. This way mankind can become a lot more focused and goal-oriented.
>>71805370
>An act does not need to be the first in order to push boundaries.
Yes, it does. That's literally what it means to 'push boundaries'.
>>71804824
It's a different timeline. What part of that don't you get?
>>71805466
So were Kirk and Uhura not pushing boundaries because they weren't the first?
>>71805504
Of course not. Was it controversial? Maybe, I guess. Nichelle Nichols says there was exactly one letter of complaint and it was pretty mild based on what she quotes from it.
Like, literally how can you be 'pushing boundaries' by doing something that's been done before? Explain it.
>>71805678
>Kirk/Uhura wasn't pushing boundaries
Well, now I know who it is that I've been wasting time arguing with.
Thanks for the info.
You can claim "victory" or whatever you want because I think I'm going to stop arguing now.
>>71805803
>words mean whatever i pretend they do
OK, seeya.
>>71797162
wheres the webm/gif of him jerking the guy off in the radio studio?
Does it really matter? It's been long established that JJ Trek isn't really Star Trek.
>>71805909
>>71805803
>>71805868
>>71805479
You don't get that the timelines were identical before the divergence point.
Sulu appears to be born and raised before the divergence point.
>>71804648
>100% of all media
rip in piece
>>71806248
lol it's peace retard
![].png](https://i.imgur.com/Q6c1ytb.png "].png")