Star Trek Beyond - Farewell to a Franchise

  • Thread starter Thread starter pnewton
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m just going to tell myself that the Sulu in Star Trek Beyond is not the Sulu we know and love, but is actually the Sulu from the Mirror, Mirror episode of the original series, come back to challenge our moral sensibilities. Problem solved, enjoy the movie.
 
christofirst said:
I’m just going to tell myself that the Sulu in Star Trek Beyond is not the Sulu we know and love, but is actually the Sulu from the Mirror, Mirror episode of the original series, come back to challenge our moral sensibilities. Problem solved, enjoy the movie.
Click to expand...
That works.

I’m going to be away the weekend it comes out, anyway. We’ll see if it’s still in the theatres when I get back.
 
christofirst said:
I’m just going to tell myself that the Sulu in Star Trek Beyond is not the Sulu we know and love, but is actually the Sulu from the Mirror, Mirror episode of the original series, come back to challenge our moral sensibilities. Problem solved, enjoy the movie.
Click to expand...
Yeah the JJverse doesn’t seem like it’s long for this world after the dud that was Into Darkness anyway.
 
Babylon 5 had the first officer Ivonova in a brief SS relationship with the station’s resident telepath Talia Winters before the latter was revealed to be a spy.
Click to expand...
I guess so, but it’s rather vague and not a big part of the story line.
I mean really if SS relationships are going to cause you to give up on Star Trek you might want to give up on anything in the genre in the last 25 years. All the major properties have touched on SS relationships in some form or others and almost always as either a positive or a “no big deal”.
Click to expand...
That’s probably because people, for better and for worse, didn’t really care and it wasn’t being shoved down their throats or forced on their kids in the public restroom or in schools.

And would you be saying this to zoophiles, objectophiles and LGBTQ if the new Star Trek movie had characters who had families like the Waltons or Happy Days?

Frankly, I think a lot of people gave up on Enterprise because it wasn’t what they wanted to see in their downtime.
 
jmcrae said:
I’m finding it really annoying - I watch one show that is supposed to be set in the early 1900s, and all of a sudden one of the main characters turns out to be a lesbian (after having several relationships with various men). Obviously, word came down from the network that they had to have a homosexual character, so bam, suddenly she’s kissing a woman. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I’m just glad that some people are thinking about this instead of just blindly showing up and handing the producers of this stuff their money.
 
Padres1969 said:
You know what Scifi property has had a terrible track record with marriage? Star Wars. There haven’t been any SS relationships to speak of, at least in the current canon yet. But the only marriages I can think of are Anakin and Padme, where he ends up indirectly murdering her in a pique of dark side rage. And spoiler for The Force Awakens, where Han and Leia are married but estranged with a son who has turned into a homicidal monster himself.
Click to expand...
To quote Bill Shatner “Star Wars is all about special effects”. Lucas tried to change that up to “make a story” as he said in the second series of three films. The marriage you speak of was probably unavoidable, and I have to say much better than not being married.

Also, to be fussy, Padme died of a broken heart, not because she was force-choked.
 
DaddyGirl said:
They may seem worlds apart to you because the faith you follow does not consider interracial marriage sinful, but it considers same-sex romance thus.
If Catholicism taught that both were disordered and sinful, you may feel they were in the “same world”.

Also, depending on your age, some people were brought up in a time when interracial marriage was just as taboo as same-sex marriage was. I mean think about it…black and white people could not sit together on a bus or in a restaurant or use the same bathroom.
So for them, they may seem on the same level/in the same world.

But if you are of a certain age, as you grew up you would have seen interracial marriages and already accepted them as the norm.
While same-sex marriage is still new-ish.
Click to expand...
Opposition to interracial marriage was mostly based on hysterical, unjustified fears and ignorance, namely people not wanting their kids to get “mixed-up” with someone of the opposite race in a highly segregated culture. :rolleyes:

Interracial relationships still produce children and can reflect God’s plan.

Same-sex relationships cannot do not reflect that. They also do not benefit economically long-term.
 
Thorolfr said:
Before long you won’t be able to watch TV or go to the movies at all any more since they will all probably have gay characters or refer to married gay couples. 😉
Click to expand...
And, insofar as going to the movies is concerned, the cost of a ticket is now up to $17.50. Incredible!
 
meltzerboy said:
And, insofar as going to the movies is concerned, the cost of a ticket is now up to $17.50. Incredible!
Click to expand...
You can go to a matinee showtime where I live even on weekends and get a ticket for half that price.
 
LBGT issues aside, recent events do make me hope one day, LEOs will be issued phasers set to stun. Then they could easily “neutralize” possible threats without any risk of actually killing them.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
LBGT issues aside, recent events do make me hope one day, LEOs will be issued phasers set to stun. Then they could easily “neutralize” possible threats without any risk of actually killing them.
Click to expand...
What does ‘LEOs’ stand for? Are you referring to the police?
 
_Abyssinia said:
What does ‘LEOs’ stand for? Are you referring to the police?
Click to expand...
Yes, “LEO” stands for “law enforcement officer” and includes not just members of Police Departments but state troopers, sheriff’s deputies, US Marshals, etc.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
LBGT issues aside, recent events do make me hope one day, LEOs will be issued phasers set to stun. Then they could easily “neutralize” possible threats without any risk of actually killing them.
Click to expand...
It’s amusing that the stun and kill settings work regardless of body mass, size or species.
No technology is perfect, even in the 24th century, I’m sure some stuns would accidentally kill as with today’s Tasers and some kills would be survivable as with guns.
 
Thorolfr said:
Before long you won’t be able to watch TV or go to the movies at all any more since they will all probably have gay characters or refer to married gay couples. 😉
Click to expand...
oh. the horror. :yawn:

Again, it is the child abuse issue that concerns me. And yes, I do not watch much television any more because of the underlying promotion of immorality.
 
DaddyGirl said:
They may seem worlds apart to you because the faith you follow does not consider interracial marriage sinful, but it considers same-sex romance thus.
If Catholicism taught that both were disordered and sinful, you may feel they were in the “same world”.
Click to expand...
The objection to interracial marriage was that it brought forth children who didn’t have a place to belong in a world of strictly divided cultures. There was a presumption that marriage brings forth children.

By providing these children with an inclusive culture, the problem was solved.

The objection to homosexual activity of any kind, including “gay marriage”, is that it cannot produce children. This isn’t a solvable problem.
 
I read an interview with George Takei and he made a very sensible and fundamental point. he said that Gene Rodenberry had not intended Mr. Sulu to be gay, so there is no justification for suddenly making him gay.

Actors have the job of bringing a writer’s words and vision to life. GT did a fine job of portraying a heterosexual Chinese man who helped fly a star-ship. If the public are confusing GT the actor with Mr. Sulu, the character, then I can see why he would be really annoyed, because his art has been undermined. He’s correct to say that if the producers want to have a gay character, they ought to make a new one.

If a straight man had done a brilliant job of portraying a gay man in a film, what would the response be if the producers suddenly made him straight, as a tribute to the actor?

If I was an actor, my idea of a tribute to my work would not be affirmation that people can’t distinguish between the real me and the character I play! That wouldn’t say a lot about my talents, would it?

I don’t think this is about gay / straight, I think it about changing a writer’s vision for a character to pander to a more current ideology. If Sulu becomes gay, why not Hamlet and Horatio (give Ophelia something to jump into that river for), or Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men?!

:rolleyes: Just think if Ian Flemming’s first choice of James Bond has landed the role. I personally don’t buy all the speculation that Cary Grant was gay, but a lot of people do. Anyway, he was an amazing actor and I’m sure his Bond would have been awesome, so…:eek:
 
jmcrae said:
The objection to homosexual activity of any kind, including “gay marriage”, is that it cannot produce children. This isn’t a solvable problem.
Click to expand...
It’s not a solvable problem yet. But in the future…?
Genetic research is advancing to the day when gay couples could fulfill their dreams of having children related to them both.
Click to expand...
Stem cell research has demonstrated that human skin cells and fibroblasts (a different kind of adult cell) can be turned into embryonic stem cells. Now, researchers at Cambridge University and the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel have shown that embryonic stem cells can be programmed to form primordial germ cells. These are the stem cells that can go on to form either eggs or sperm. If scientists can figure out how to turn a primordial germ cell that originated from the skin of a man into an egg, could it be fertilized with his partner’s sperm?
Click to expand...
time.com/3748019/same-sex-couples-biological-children/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top